The Notorious G-A-P

WHEN EDUCATORS open their Fibber McGee's closets of past reforms, a pile of silver bullets will spill out onto the floor. For at least the past 20 years, the sense of public confidence in public education has been fed by an arsenal of such quick, often creative, but largely unsubstantiated remedies for turning schools and kids around. And the pile became much larger this fall. The highest-caliber bullet of all--the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act--landed on top of the pile. But it was not the only presumed salvation of the public schools to lose some of its luster recently. Collecting data about these failed silver bullets can often tell us more than we've known before. The first National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) report on reading and math scores that fairly reflects changes under NCLB showed essentially that, so far, this silver bullet is pretty much of a dud. Reading scores were flat, and math scores were up only a bit. Despite statements by the Bush Administration that sought to put a happy face on the findings, the NAEP data showed that progress had been better before NCLB became law than it has been since it was enacted. The data also indicate something that few pundits seem willing to acknowledge. Since the passage of NCLB, about four years ago, changes in the demographics of the student population have accelerated, and schools all over the country are feeling the impact of more English-language learners than ever before. It is to the schools' credit that NAEP reading scores--in the early grades, at least --did not go down. Moreover, the very slight improvement in math scores could be attributed partially to the fact that math test items in the early grades, and even to some extent on the eighth-grade tests, do not require advanced reading skills. (Another possible explanatory factor is that the efforts of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics have given us some semblance of national math standards and that these standards have been in various stages of implementation for more than 15 years.) The NAEP data also underscore the accident-of-birth unfairness built into state accountability systems. The erratic performance of students on state measures of achievement, compared to their performance on NAEP, demonstrates that students in some states are being held accountable for much higher levels of performance than students in other states. And no state has made much progress, as revealed in the NAEP scores. Some 20 states claim to have made progress on their own eighth-grade reading assessments between 2003 and 2005, but only three showed any progress at even the basic level on NAEP. And, according to the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, only eight of 25 states that did announce progress on their own fourth-grade reading tests had more than one-third as much progress at the basic level on NAEP. As might be expected, proponents and opponents of charter schools took the very same data and came up with different analyses. The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools found them to be making more progress than other schools; the American Federation of Teachers found them to be making less, even after accounting for student-level racial/economic variables. Another silver bullet to land atop the pile of spent ones is the grandiose array of promises made by Edison Schools, Inc. In the immortal tradition of Edward R. Murrow's series You Are There, I was there when Tennessee entrepreneur Chris Whittle announced that he would launch a network of at least 100 new schools that would rival public schools in terms of technology and student achievement. …

Mainstream education research and policy is dominated by social science orientations that primarily rely on positivist theories, models, and interpretations of the mathematical competence of African Americans or Blacks (terms are used interchangeably). Contemporary scholarship and national discourse surrounding the education of Blacks often center on the notion of pathology, a view largely supported by deficit perspectives (Martin, 2009a; Stinson 2006). As Martin has pointed out, research and policy is a site where degradation of African American children occurs (Martin, 2009a, p. 1) in part because of the on-going discussions of racial achievement gaps and comparisons to White and Asian American students.An official and public conversation about achievement gaps has been going on at least since 1969 when The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) began reporting racially disaggregated achievement data (see National Center for Education Statistics website at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/). Most policymakers and researchers use NAEP data to make consequential claims about U.S. students' outcomes - Black students' outcomes in particular. The claims can be consequential because school districts, teachers, and even families and students themselves view the interpretations of the standardized assessments as normative, correlated with intelligence, and generally disconnected from institutional issues and contexts.There are explanations in the literature for why achievement gaps exist. Some researchers point to factors such as inequitable distribution of quality teachers (Adamson & Darling-Hammond, 2012). Others position Black parents negatively, blaming them for placing low value on early education (Jencks & Phillips, 1998). Still other scholars contend that the U.S. does not have an achievement gap at all, but an educational debt (Ladson-Billings, 2006). Mathematics education research and policy continue to use achievement gap language in decontextualized ways despite a growing body of literature that suggests race-comparative approaches position Black students at the bottom of the racial hierarchy of ability (Martin, 2009a, b, c). These approaches do not address issues of identity and power, which are important for decentering the assimilationist perspective in many education policy documents (Gutierrez, 2008). The perspective can be viewed as assimilationist because there is little recognition of the linguistic and cultural resources that marginalized students bring to the classroom or to the discipline of mathematics (Gutierrez, 2008, p. 361). Moreover, there is limited effort by mainstream education research and policy to understand what it means to learn while also being Black (Martin, 2012). Critical Race Theory (Crenshaw, Gotanda, Peller, & Thomas, 2000; Delgado & Stefancic, 2012) points out that race and racism are endemic in U.S. society; therefore, it is critical to analyze the intersection at the teaching and learning of and the story of race to interrogate ways race influences Black people's educational experiences and production of mathematical knowledge.The rise in national focus on the achievement of Blacks using state and national summative assessments can be marked by important legal decisions beginning with Brown v. Board of Education (1954), but also the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. What did the education of Blacks look like before these legal decisions? While very little is known about the education of Blacks pre-Brown, there is some documentation of important issues we might find at that intersection of teaching and learning and race during segregation (Russell, 2014). The field also knows that new narratives describing the segregated schooling of Blacks, mainly in the South have challenged the master narrative that reduced all Black schools and students to unilateral inferiority (Anderson, 1988; Siddle-Walker, 2009). …

The Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) has been used to document and track an achievement gap between white and minority students in Texas. Some educators have credited the TAAS with fueling a drive to close the achievement gap while others suggest that TAAS scores may be misleading because of factors such as score inflation and a possible ceiling effect. The purpose of this study was to analyze the gap in mathematics achievement for eighth grade students. The study compared TAAS and National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test results to determine if the achievement gap between white, Hispanic, and African-American Students had narrowed between 1996 and 2000. Results indicate that TAAS mean scores increased significantly for all three ethnic groups between 1996 and 2000. Comparison of the TAAS test score frequency distributions for each ethnic group indicated that white students' scores shifted from the middle to the upper portion of the test score range while minority students' scores shifted from the lower to the middle and higher score range. Both white and minority students' TAAS test score distributions were significantly more negatively skewed in 2000 than in 1996. Comparisons between white and minority students' TAAS scores showed that white students had significantly higher scores than either Hispanic or African-American students in both 1996 and 2000. Comparison of mean score differences in 1996 and 2000 indicated that the achievement gap between white and minority students had narrowed. NAEP scores increased significantly from 1996 to 2000 for Hispanic students, but not for white or African-American students. However, test score distribution patterns showed small positive changes for all three ethnic groups. Comparisons between ethnic groups indicated that there were significant differences between white and minority students' scores in both 1996 and 2000. Comparison of mean score differences in 1996 and 2000 indicated that the achievement gap between Hispanic white students had narrowed slightly but that there was no change in the achievement gap between white and African-American students. Analysis of the TAAS test score distribution patterns indicated the likelihood that a ceiling effect had impacted students' scores. The evidence for a ceiling effect was strongest for white students. In 2000, 60.4% of white students had a TAAS score that fell in the top 10% of the score range. In contrast, there was no evidence of a ceiling effect for the NAEP. Mean score gains on the TAAS are only partially substantiated by the NAEP data. Furthermore, there is a very strong possibility that a ceiling effect artificially restricted the 2000 TAAS scores for white students and created the illusion that the achievement gap between minority and white students had been narrowed.

This study investigated causal links between states’ principal evaluation policies and academic achievement among Black and Hispanic students, focusing on two policy levers: (a) required inclusion of student growth data (output-based) and (b) mandated observations or site visits (input-based). We used repeated cross-sectional data on policy levers collected at eight time points during 2005 to 2019 and a counterfactual estimation framework for causal inferences. States enacting the output-based policy lever did not typically have higher reading or math achievement scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress among Black and Hispanic eighth-grade students than states without these policies. In contrast, the input-based policy lever had a significant positive effect on eighth-grade reading achievement scores, particularly among Black students. The importance of focusing on principal behaviors rather than student achievement is discussed for enhancing school accountability with racial equity.

NEWT GINGRICH has suggested that Democrats run their election campaigns on a simple slogan: Had enough? (1) Bush Administration shenanigans and Congressional political ploys so brazen as to be unbelievable--for instance, tying a rise in minimum wage that would benefit millions to a reduction in estate tax that would benefit nation's 7,500 wealthiest families--had me nodding in agreement. Herewith, year in review. DESPERATELY SEEKING STRAWS TO GRASP This law is helping us learn about what works in our schools. And clearly, high and accountability are working. Over last five years, our 9-year-olds have made more progress in reading than in previous 28 combined. So said Margaret Spellings at Child Left Behind Summit in April 2006, referring to gains on National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (2) In statistical circles, what secretary is doing is called picking. And in this instance, careless and self-serving cherry picking, too. Those last five years Spellings spoke of span 1999 to 2004. For two of those years Bill Clinton was President, and it is possible that all that gain--all 7 points--occurred on his watch. In two of those five years, NCLB did not exist. In 2001-02, NCLB (signed into law in January 2002) would have been in existence only three months before a NAEP assessment--had there been one. And given confusion that reigned from 2002 to 2004 and hostility between states and U.S. Department of Education, it is not likely that much gain occurred then. (Remember that in 2002, then-Secretary Rod Paige accused some states of trying to ratchet down their standards and thus of being enemies of equal justice and equal opportunity and ... apologists for failure. (3) It's surprising he didn't go on to call them terrorist organizations.) Spellings' statement is true only if you start in NAEP's first trend year, 1971. Begin in year of NAEP's previous trend high point, 1980, and gain would be only 4 points. Then, too, there was no gain from 1999 to 2004 for 13-year-olds and a decline of 3 points for 17-year-olds. And why didn't she mention math trends, since 9-year-olds showed a 9-point gain and 13-year-olds a 5-point gain? Seventeen-year-olds, though, showed a 1-point decline. Spellings also said, Scores are at all-time highs for African American and Hispanic students. (4) Well, if she meant reading scores for 9-year-olds, that was true. But it wasn't true for 17-year-old blacks or 13- and 17-year-old Hispanics (13-year-old blacks were at an all-time high by a single point). The statement would have been true, too, in mathematics, except for black and Hispanic 17-year-olds. The NAEP assessment of 2005, though, proved less upbeat. The regular NAEP assessments, ones billed as the nation's report card, change items over time in conjunction with curricular shifts; NAEP that yields trends administers same items at each assessment. In assessment for 2005, fourth-grade reading reached same level as it had at onset of NCLB in 2002, and eighth-grade reading declined 2 points. In math, scores rose 3 points for fourth-graders from 2003 and 1 point for eighth-graders. In reading, proportion of students at or above proficient level was static for fourth-graders at 31% and fell for eighth-graders from 33% to 31%. In mathematics, proportion of fourth-graders at or above proficient rose from 32% to 36%, while for eighth-graders it rose from 29% to 30%. While the Administration scrambled to put best face on numbers and to defend law that some complain forces a test-driven curriculum on classroom, Lois Romano reported in Washington Post, Ross Wiener of Education Trust had a more common reaction: No one can be satisfied with these results. There's been a discernible slowdown in progress since '03, at a time when we desperately need to accelerate gains. …

THE ACHIEVEMENT gap receives a lot of attention these days. It is, after all, alleged raison d'etre of No Child Left Behind. It is usually defined as difference between test scores of white students on one hand and those of black and Hispanic students on other. (Asian students almost always get ignored for some reason.) Unfortunately, educators and journalists alike have fallen into trap of reporting changes in pass rates on tests as if they were measures of achievement gap. They are not. At best, passing rates are poor proxies for real measures. The Massachusetts Department of Education; Michael Cohen and Matt Gandal of Achieve, Inc.; David Herszenhorn and Michael Winerip of New York Times; Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City; Chancellor Joel Klein of New York City Public Schools; and Achievement Alliance, a consortium of Education Trust, National Council of La Raza, Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights, Just for Kids, Inc., and Business Roundtable, have all reported passing rates as if they were scores. They are not. Consider data from Massachusetts Department of Education, reproduced in Cohen and Gandal's Do Graduation Tests Measure Up? Figure 1 shows passing rates for class of 2003 on Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System. On initial administration, when students were 10th-graders, blacks and Hispanics passed at rates far lower than whites: blacks, 37%; Hispanics, 29%; whites, 77%. By sixth retest, passing rates had become much more similar. Cohen and Gandal take these data as showing that the achievement gap closed dramatically. Probably not. Consider following hypothetical data. Hypothetical Data Score Needed to Pass = 60 Pass Average Rate Score Gap Black students, 2004 60% 62 White students, 2004 100% 78 16 Black students, 2005 70% 68 White students, 2005 100% 92 24 Between 2004 and 2005, black students improved both their passing rate (going from 60% to 70%) and their score (from 62 to 78). So far so good. But white students, while not improving their passing rate, improved their score even more, so much that black/white gap in scores (the proper metric) actually increased. There is another problem with conclusions in Massachusetts report. The 10th-graders and 12th-graders are not comparable. Somewhere between freshman and senior years, 18,000 students disappeared from Massachusetts' rolls. Some no doubt moved to other states. But others would have been retained in grade or would have dropped out, perhaps because of failing test. In either case, these low-scoring students are no longer part of class of 2003. Naturally, state officials, who like to brag about students rising to challenge of tests, don't like it when researchers call attention to such dishonest presentation of data, but when Anne Wheelock conducted appropriate analysis of data for Massachusetts for class of 2004, she concluded that state had little reason to brag. She found these passing rates: Class of 2004 Pass Rate All students 74%, not 96% White students 80%, not 98% Black students 59%, not 88% Hispanic students 54%, not 85% Asian students 89%, not 95% Note that gap for final pass rate for class of 2004 is nearly as large as 10th-grade gap was for class of 2003. This is not a trivial case of researchers making statistical mountains out of practical molehills. At least one of journalists cited above knows this. When I presented my hypothetical data to Times' Herszenhorn, he replied, Of course, that's exactly way it works.... We have done some analysis of mean scale scores, enough to know that strong gains in suburbs were masked by looking mostly at who crosses line. …

ABSTRACTIn this investigation, the validity of observer reports versus student self‐reports of race and ethnicity in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) for ages 9, 13, and 17 were evaluated. Data from seven surveys (1975‐1984) were analyzed, with sample sizes ranging from 15,859 to 38,899. While the concordance between the two methods for both White and Black students was very high (95% or better), the two classifications gave very disparate results for the other four racial/ethnic groups. For example, observers undercounted self‐identified Hispanic 17–year‐olds by 25% to 48%. Language background was significantly (p < .0001) more consistent with self‐identification than with observer reports for 17‐year‐old Hispanic students which showed that self reports were more valid than observed ethnicity in this age group. However, the results for ages 9 and 13 were less clear‐cut. The implications of the findings for continuity in NAEP data sets and the validity of reported group achievement data for Hispanic students are discussed.

Racial discrimination in school punishment is well documented but not well understood. We examine the politics of implicit bias as theorized by the Racial Classification Model using two types of school suspensions in a state with large numbers of both Black and Hispanic students. We find important differences in sanctioning patterns with Black and Hispanic enrollment as expected from differing stereotypes of those groups. There are also differences within Hispanic students in Florida—again highlighting the importance of group stereotypes. In addition, we find a spillover effect, where schools comprised of more Black (and to a lesser extent, Hispanic) students have higher suspension rates for not only Black students, but for White and Hispanic students as well.

Background Developmental education (DE) has been critiqued because of its high cost, the inconclusive evidence as to its effectiveness, and the overrepresentation of underrepresented minority students required to take it. Because Black and Hispanic students are more often referred to developmental courses and may require more levels of remediation, a significant racial/ethnic achievement gap between White students and underrepresented minority students has formed in the likelihood of students earning credit for college-level courses in their first semester. Focus of Study To address these concerns, the Florida legislature passed Senate Bill 1720 in 2013, which, among other mandates, made DE (and placement tests) optional for many students. Now that this barrier to gateway course enrollment has been removed, this article seeks to understand whether there was any relationship between its removal and the achievement gap between White students and underrepresented minority students in gateway course passing rates, or gateway success, in the first semester. Research Design We employed a difference-in-differences model estimating the relationships between students’ race/ethnicity and their success in gateway courses, specifically English Composition 1 and Intermediate Algebra. Interaction terms between an indicator for the year the policy was implemented and indicators for race/ethnicity allow us to determine whether Black, Hispanic, and White students experienced differential outcomes following the policy change. Data Collection Data for this analysis came from the Florida Education Data Warehouse, the statewide student-level longitudinal database. We examined the first-semester educational trajectories of Black, White, and Hispanic students across six cohorts of students who entered one of the 28 colleges in the Florida College System between 2009 and 2014. Findings The findings indicate that now that students have the option to bypass developmental courses, Black and Hispanic students are enrolling in gateway courses at higher rates compared with White students. Further, although course-based passing rates have declined, the cohort-based passing rates for Black and Hispanic students have increased at rates higher than those of White students, which provides some evidence that the achievement gap may be closing in Intermediate Algebra. Conclusions This study illuminates an important positive outcome that has far-reaching policy implications. Results suggest that by making DE optional, there can be a reduction in, and indeed the elimination of, the racial/ethnic achievement gap in at least one measure of student success in college. These findings suggest that eliminating barriers can have a strong positive impact-at least in the short term-on the success of Black and Hispanic students.

Background Civic learning is an increasingly salient topic in research, policy, and practice. However, the recent empirical evidence on access to civic learning opportunities in the U.S. is limited, and monitoring learning opportunities is equally as important as monitoring learning outcomes. Methods We build on prior research using survey items from the 2018 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Civics Assessment and provide descriptive evidence on disparities in access to three categories of civics content and four evidence-based instructional approaches. We describe inequalities in opportunities by student characteristics, school characteristics, and state characteristics among a national sample of more than 10,000 Grade 8 students. Results Our findings diverge from most of the prior evidence regarding disparities in access by race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic background, favoring Black students, Hispanic students, and students of relatively lower socioeconomic backgrounds. English learners and students with disabilities also reported greater exposure to civic learning opportunities than their counterparts. Other findings include inequalities across school type/sector, school location, and state testing policy. Conclusions These novel findings raise new questions about the distribution of civic learning opportunities in U.S. schools. We discuss implications and the need for further research on this important topic with data that allows for continued improvements with internal and external validity.

Ethnic-racial background may influence college students' psychological sense of community (PSOC). Thus, it is critical to examine whether this construct is conceptualized similarly between non-Hispanic, Black and Hispanic students. This study tested the measurement invariance of the Brief Sense of Community Scale (BSCS) across the two groups. We used data from a self-administered online survey provided to college students in 2016 in a Northeastern urban university (non-Hispanic, Black = 307; Hispanic = 409). We tested the measurement invariance of the BSCS using a series of nested multigroup confirmatory factor analyses with increasingly restrictive sets of parameters. Measurement invariance of the BSCS across non-Hispanic, Black and Hispanic college students was achieved. The BSCS successfully measures the multidimensionality of PSOC across the two groups in a college setting. Students' score on the BSCS is not biased by measurement invariance related to cultural influences. When using the BSCS, community psychologists and researchers can have confidence that the observed differences in PSOC across non-Hispanic, Black and Hispanic college students are attributable to true differences rather than a cultural understanding of the construct.

Decomposing the Racial Gap in STEM Major Attrition: A Course-Level Investigation

In the United States the extent of the need for new thinking and new approaches to all of education is underscored by the prevalence of inadequate student achievement and preparation across the nation. In the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 68 per cent of the nation’s 4th graders scored below proficient in reading (US Department of Education, 2001a) and 74 per cent scored below proficient in math (US Department of Education, 2001b) – with higher rates of failure among Latino and Black students, students in inner cities, and students living in poverty. In response to these kinds of results, and the emergence of a knowledge economy, the National Education Goals Panel (1991) have long called for ‘fundamental changes in our education system [to enable people] to think for a living, adapt to changing environments [and] continually learn and develop new skills’ (p.1). When fields are in crisis – as for many is the case with education – philosophers of science advocate an examination of their underlying paradigms. The aim is to rethink premises that may enable scientists and practitioners to ask new questions, construct new theories, design, implement and research new programmes, and achieve better results. This paper presents one attempt to do that in education. It draws principally on advances in the cognitive and learning sciences to secure a philosophical paradigm and a theoretical foundation to guide the efforts of programme developers, educators, parents, administrators and policy makers to help all students achieve higher academic standards while learning how to learn.

Between 1988 and 2008, the number of White children in K-12 public schools in the United States dropped from 68.3 % to 55.5 % (Aud, Fox & KewalRamani, 2010). Currently, in the 67 large urban districts that comprise the Council of Great City Schools, only 20% of students are White (Council of Great City Schools, 2013). As the public school population becomes more diverse racially, ethnically, and linguistically, we continue to prepare a majority of White, female teachers for our nation's schools. Never before have there been so many children entering schools populated by teachers who reflect neither their race, language, nor the communities from which they come (NCES, 2007). To compound the challenge, there is research to suggest that high quality teachers actively avoid schools with a large percentage of minority students (Jackson, 2009).An Achievement GapThese shifting demographics directly inform unequal patterns of achievement among the nation's children. There continues to be an achievement gap of tremendous proportion for culturally and linguistically diverse children (Hemphill & Vanneman, 2010; Vanneman et al., 2009). In 2009, while 39% of White students scored at or above the proficient level on the reading portion of the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), scores for Black and Hispanic eighth graders were 13% and 16% respectively. Similarly, Black and Hispanic students were outpaced on the math portion of the NAEP, with proficient or above ratings at 12% and 17%, compared to 43% of White eighth graders (Council of Great City Schools, 2013). Explanations for the achievement gap have been posited over the last five decades. While some clearly cling to a cultural deficit perspective (Trueba, 1988; Valencia, 1997), others blame structural and institutional factors resulting in inequitable access to the teachers and schools most likely to impact educational success (Roscigno, Tomaskovic-Devey, & Crowley, 2006). Finally, cultural and environmental factors, including stereotype threat (Steele & Aronson, 1995), a cultural discontinuity between home and school (Graybill, 1997) and the low expectations of teachers (McKown & Weinstein, 2008) have further fueled the dialogue. While the root cause of these discrepancies in learning continues to be debated, it remains apparent that teacher education programs have a responsibility to equip candidates with the requisite knowledge, skills, and dispositions through which to most effectively engage all students in the process of equitable learning.TEACHER STEREOTYPES AND EXPECTATIONSStereotypical views and negative attitudes evidenced by teachers about students of color also raise considerable concern. Hinojosa and Moras (2009) compared teacher racial attitudes with those of similarly educated non-teachers, with discouraging results. This study consistently found that teachers out-scored their non-teacher counterparts on measures of bias, both in theory and in practice. Teachers in this study were more likely to favor laws against racial intermarriage, were less likely to live in neighborhoods where at least one-half of the population was African American, and were more likely to object to sending their child to a school that was mostly populated by African American students. Additional studies have documented teacher stereotypes relative to diverse populations of children and families. Pigott and Cowen (2000) found that both White and African American teachers rated African American students lower on competency, school adjustment, and future educational prognoses.These stereotypes can translate to lower expectations (Elhoweris et al., 2005; Terrill & Mark, 2000), which can impact the motivation of the learner (Baksh & Martin, 1984). Teacher expectations have been shown to correlate with disparity in practice (Brophy, 1983; McKown & Weinstein, 2008), creating an achievement differential (Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2000), and thereby jeopardizing the notion of equity in education. …

BackgroundRecent research on Marginalization-related Diminished Returns (MDRs) has documented weaker boosting effects of parental educational attainment on educational outcomes of Black than White students. Such MDRs of parental education seem to contribute to the Black-White achievement gap. Given that Blacks are more likely than Whites to attend urban schools, there is a need to study if these MDRs can be replicated at both urban and suburban schools.AimTo test the contribution of diminished returns of parental educational attainment on the Black-White achievement gap in urban and suburban American high schools.MethodsA cross-sectional study that used baseline Education Longitudinal Study (ELS-2002) data, a nationally representative study of 10th grade adolescents in the United States. This study analyzed 8315 youths who were either non-Hispanic White (n = 6539, 78.6%) or non-Hispanic Black (n = 1776, 21.4%) who were attending either suburban (n = 5188, 62.4%) or urban (n = 3127, 37.6%) schools. The outcome was standard math and reading grades. The independent variable was parental educational attainment. Gender, parental marital status, and school characteristics (% free lunch and relationship quality with the teacher) were the confounders. Race/ethnicity was the effect of modifier. School urbanity was the strata. Linear regression was used for data analysis.ResultsIn urban and suburban schools, higher parental educational attainment was associated with higher math and reading test scores. In urban and suburban schools, Black students had considerably lower reading and math scores than White students. At urban but not suburban schools, significant interactions were found between race (Non-Hispanic Black) and parental education attainment (years of schooling) on reading and math scores, suggested that the protective effect of parental education on students’ reading and math scores (ie school achievement) is smaller for Non-Hispanic Black relative to Non-Hispanic White youth only in urban but not sub-urban schools.ConclusionDiminished returns of parental education (MDRs) contribute to the racial achievement gap in urban but not suburban American high schools. This result is important given Black students are more likely to attend urban schools than White students. As MDRs are not universal and depend on context, future research should study contextual characteristics of urban schools that contribute to MDRs.