MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1985344502 · doi:10.1353/urb.2006.0024

Understanding Trends in the Black-White Achievement Gaps during the First Years of School

2006· article· en· W1985344502 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueBrookings-Wharton papers on urban affairs · 2006
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueSchool Choice and Performance
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésWhite (mutation)Quarter (Canadian coin)Reading (process)Academic achievementLiteracySeparate but equalMathematics educationPsychologySociologyRace (biology)Political sciencePedagogyGender studiesLawHistory

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Understanding Trends in the Black-White Achievement Gaps during the First Years of School Richard J. Murnane Harvard Graduate School of Education John B. Willett Harvard Graduate School of Education Kristen L. Bub Harvard Graduate School of Education Kathleen McCartney Harvard Graduate School of Education [Comments] The gaps between the average academic achievement of black and white children have been persistent features of American life. Until quite recently, obvious differences in the school resources provided to children of different races explained substantial portions of these achievement gaps. For example, in 1920 more than one-quarter of the racial gap in children's literacy rates could be explained by differences in easy-to-measure variables such as the school year length and per pupil expenditures.1 Given the history of blatant discrimination in the school resources provided to American children of different races, it is understandable why the U.S. Congress in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ordered the commissioner of education to conduct a survey to document "the lack of availability of equal educational opportunities by reason of race, color, religion, or natural origin in public educational institutions at all levels. . . ."2 In July 1966 the U.S. Office of Education published the survey results in a 737-page volume entitled Equality of Educational Opportunity. Better known as the Coleman Report, named after its lead author, the eminent sociologist James Coleman, this volume documented the substantial gaps between the average mathematics and reading [End Page 97] achievement of black and white children. However, to the surprise of many educators and civil rights activists, the report found no clear-cut pattern showing that white children attended schools with substantially more of the school resources measured in the survey than did black children. Moreover, school-to-school variation in resources explained very little of the school-to-school variation in children's mathematics and reading achievement. As Harvard government professor Seymour Martin Lipset summarized the results in a conversation with Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "schools make no difference; families make the difference."3 The Coleman Report catalyzed the collection of new data that allowed researchers to challenge the report's findings. Many of the newer data sets provided information on school resources and on children's achievement at more than one point in time. These attributes have allowed researchers to demonstrate conclusively that students learn more in some classrooms and schools than in others. However, with a few exceptions noted below, the newer studies tended to replicate the Coleman Report findings that differences in conventional school resources, such as class size and teachers' educational attainments, do not explain much of the variation in student achievement nor do they explain much of the race-related achievement gaps.4 This background provides the context for two provocative papers recently published by Fryer and Levitt.5 These economists documented a number of patterns in the relative academic achievement of young black and white children. Their work, which focuses particularly on differences by grade in the black-white test score gap in reading and mathematics, is based on analyses of data on the kindergarten cohort of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS-K), a nationally representative sample of more than 20,000 children who entered kindergarten in approximately 1,000 schools during 1998. Key findings of the two Fryer and Levitt papers include: at the beginning of kindergarten, the black-white achievement gap is approximately 0.40 standard deviations in reading and 0.60 standard deviations in mathematics; a parsimonious set of family background characteristics explains all of the black-white achievement gap in reading and more than 80 percent of the gap in mathematics; [End Page 98] the black-white achievement gap in both reading and mathematics increases by approximately 0.10 standard deviations during each of the first four years of elementary school (kindergarten through third grade); there are...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,348
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,864

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,032
Tête enseignante GPT0,260
Écart entre enseignants0,228 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle