Peterson, Paul E. (Ed.). (2006). Generational change: Closing the test score gap. Reviewed by Karrin S. Lukacs, George Mason University

Peterson, Paul E. (Ed.). (2006). Generational change: Closing the test score gap. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. Pp. v + 216 $24.95   ISBN 0-7425-4609-8 Reviewed by Karrin S. Lukacs George Mason University October 11, 2006 Imagine having your car towed to an automotive repair shop and simply telling the mechanics there, “It’s broken. Fix it.” Where would they begin? They would probably start by trying to figure out what was broken; one might try testing the battery, the other the carburetor. But let’s say that all of the diagnostic tests they run reported that a multitude of things could be wrong with your car; it isn’t just the battery or the carburetor, it could also be the brakes or the alternator. As a result, they admit that they’re not quite sure what’s wrong or how to fix it. What then? It can be argued that the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law has done the same to those in the education community. American education is “broken” in the sense that an achievement gap (as measured by test scores) exists between minority and white students, and NCLB requires that it must be closed (or “fixed”). Complicating the issue for education reformers is that no agreement exists in the education community as to what “causes” the gap; is it poverty, peer pressure, or parenting? Is it inequities in resources, teacher quality, or genetics? Is it some combination or something else entirely? Not knowing where the gap comes from makes it difficult to propose ways of fixing it. While there is some discussion about the causes of the achievement gap in Generational Change: Closing the Test Score Gap, the overwhelming sentiment is that, regardless of root cause(s), something must be done---and the sooner, the better. As such, a variety of reforms are proposed, ranging from the creation of high-quality preschools to increased school accountability standards. Working from the assumption of the necessity for immediate action, the reform recommendations in Generational Change posit several possible changes in current education policy. In a sense, the authors in this books are like the mechanics; they may be somewhat unsure as to the future effectiveness of their proposals, but they do agree: “Some problems are so important we should just take our best shot” (Haskins, in Peterson, 2006, p.73). In this book, the focus is on the policy-centered reform initiatives believed by the authors to be the most likely to foster equal academic achievement for all students. It is important to note that this book does not consider the achievement gap between and among student sub-groups (such as gender or exceptionality) other than those related to race/culture.Drawing upon the findings of research, a broad range of policy alternatives are identified and discussed by the authors, including preschool programs, further desegregation, accountability, and school choice. The viewpoints are meant (as the back cover tells us) to “shape the debate” among those in the education policy community. The “debate” piece is certainly evident; from one chapter to another, there is a sort of “back and forth” exchange of ideas among the authors. One concludes that the gap appears before kindergarten; another says it starts once children enter school. While one author recommends further school desegregation, another finds such a notion neither “politically feasible” nor practical. One extols high-stakes testing, another remarks, “I’m not a big fan.” Despite their disagreements or their differences in their findings, the authors virtually all reach the same conclusion. The one clear winner among these policy theorists is the “one-two punch” of accountability and school choice, which are touted as the most promising in terms of narrowing the test score gap. Peterson’s “Toward the Elimination of Race Differences in Educational Achievement” In Chapter 1, Peterson writes with a sense of urgency, which stems from the words of Sandra Day O’Connor: “We expect that twenty-five years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary” (O’Connor, [2003], pp.30-31, quoted in Peterson, 2006, p.1). Peterson believes that this statement is “no less than a mandate” that affirmative action for college admissions must end by 2028, and, as such, seeks to examine what progress must be made before that time in order to fully close the test score gap. Admitting that some critics might call this goal “a mere fantasy” or “a dangerous deception,” (p. 8), Peterson writes that there is cause-- in the form of data that reveal the gap was indeed narrowing during the 1970s and until 1988--for policy makers and others to be optimistic about the future. In essence, his belief is that previous success in closing the gap indicates that future success is possible. Given this sense of optimistic urgency, Peterson proposes a number of education policies, including “high quality” preschool programs, further school desegregation, greater student accountability, and provisions for choice in schooling. Neal’s “How Families and Schools Shape the Achievement Gap” In Chapter 2, Neal argues that the black community is in “crisis,” due to the interactive effects of the persistent black-white achievement (or skill) gap and the rising demand for skilled workers in the U.S. economy. As such, Neal theorizes that the achievement gap is a result of different investment behaviors by groups of parents who differ with respect to their wealth and their access to educational opportunities for their children. He rejects high-stakes, test-based accountability systems as a viable policy option; rather, he suggests that a combination of voucher programs (which provide for school choice) and early childhood interventions (such as preschool) may help to close the gap. Emphasis should be placed on the use of the phrase “may help,” as Neal cautions: “It is hard to imagine that any feasible reforms of K-12 education could truly close the black-white skill gap in the near future” (p.40). Haskins’ “Putting Education into Preschools” In Chapter 3, Haskins cites evidence which shows that test scores for blacks and Hispanics are far behind those of whites and that this gap opens before the age of five (when children traditionally enter school). These data, coupled with the author’s assumption that education is the leading strategy for promoting equality in American society, lead him to advocate for a “high quality” preschool system. Haskins finds that “all in all,” model programs such as Abecedarian and the Perry Preschool produce immediate impacts as well as long-lasting gains, while the effects of Head Start were found to be less strong, and those of state-sponsored preschool programs were found to be immediate, but not long-lasting. Haskins does not advocate federally funded “high quality” universal preschool due to its cost and the difficulties of implementing it a nationwide basis. Instead, he argues that Congress should enact a program of competitive grants for states or cities that submit a proposal meeting several conditions, including (among others): plans to align the preschool curriculum with that of kindergarten, provisions for parent choice, and standardized assessments of children at both the beginning and the end of the preschool academic year. Fryer & Levitt’s “Losing Ground at School” In contrast to other chapters, the data in Chapter 4 come from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K), a survey administered to a sample of more than 20,000 children entering kindergarten in the fall of 1998. In addition to the large amount of demographic information gathered when the survey was administered, participants were re-interviewed in subsequent grades. When the data from the ECLS-K was controlled for a number of other “observable characteristics” (such as the child’s age and birth weight), the authors found that the black-white test score gap was virtually eliminated. Thus, the authors conclude, the gap begins when children enter school and not before. Accordingly, a number of possible “in school” explanations (quality of schools, parental contributions, and “summer setbacks”) were tested. The authors’ findings indicate that the cause of the achievement gap is that black students attend lower quality schools than do whites. The authors note that this is their theory, and that they have not provided “definitive proof”; for that, they argue, more detailed data on schools, neighborhoods, and the general environments in which children grow up is needed. Armor’s “Lessons Learned from School Desegregation” Arguing that it is critical to learn the cause of the achievement gap, in Chapter 5, David Armor’s attention turns to the research on desegregation, its effects, and possible conditions that may improve black achievement in segregated schools. Armor discusses the four most prominent theories used to explain the achievement gap: self-esteem theory, educational inputs theory, peer group theory, and family risk factors. Armor concludes that none of these standing alone can explain the achievement gap that exists between black and white students, and, as a result, he posits that a “tangled” combination of interactions, including teacher certification, race of teacher, peer group and/or black culture effect cause the gap. Regardless of the actual cause (or causes) of the achievement gap, Armor feels that, when it comes to desegregation and education policy, it is unwise to predict that direct policy reforms can change the racial composition of schools on a large scale. However, in Armor’s view, one smaller-scale desegregation policy option might still provide some hope---allowing students access to schools of choice, including charter schools, voucher schools, or public magnet schools in other districts. Hanushek & Raymond’s “Early Returns from School Accountability” In Chapter 6, the authors begin by stating that it is difficult to cull findings from research exploring the potential impact of school accountability. The shift toward state accountability has overlapped with a variety of other changes in schools and society, which makes drawing conclusions a complex and complicated task. Nevertheless, the authors argue, one point is clear: while accountability has a positive impact on the learning of all students, it does not reduce any gaps in learning between groups of students. As the authors point out, while some in the policy community believe that as overall achievement rises, so, too, the achievement gap narrows, the evidence does not suggest “such a fortuitous result” (p.145). They conclude that accountability systems can work to narrow the differences in test scores if disclosure of information and consequences for student outcomes are put into place. Wolf’s “School Choice by Mortgage or by Design” Research has shown that traditional school choice (based on residential assignment) tends to benefit only financially advantaged families, most of whom are white. As such, in Chapter 7, the author argues that policy-induced school choice, while unlikely by itself to close the achievement gap in one generation, does hold promise for disadvantaged students. Because reformed school choice would sever the link between residence and education, enhance parental responsibility for schooling, and pressure other schools to improve, the author believes that it can “at least” narrow the gap before 2028. However, he adds: “It would be somewhat foolhardy to assume that expanded school choice alone would forever vanquish the notorious test-score gap; yet…it would be perhaps more foolhardy to cease trying and learning” (p.191). Finn’s “Many Causes, No Easy Solutions” Stating that: “It is of little use to spend vast energy trying to settle on the causes of today’s learning gap…our real challenge is not to argue about its sources, but to narrow and in time eliminate it” (p.200), Chester Finn believes that the “surest formula for progress” is a partnership between/combination of school accountability and school choice. Finn goes further by adding that, in his opinion, every educator and school be judged not only by their intentions, but also by their results. In short, he calls for not merely educational change, but rather for educational revolution. Yet despite the often differing viewpoints and conclusions offered by the authors featured in Generational Change, there are a number of points of agreement, including the following: the acknowledgement of the gap’s intricacies, the unlikelihood of the complete effectiveness of any single reform, and the belief that there is hope for the future. The gap is complex. All of the authors featured in this book refer to the intricacies involved with the issue of closing the achievement gap. Words like “dynamic,” “complex,” “multi-layered,” and “multi-faceted” are used to describe the nature of attempting to tackle this problem. The authors acknowledge that there are a variety of factors contributing to and influencing the study of the achievement gap, and that each of these interacts with the others in a number of ways. As such, the reader is often reminded that it is difficult to know for certain whether any recommendations will be truly successful in the closing the test score gap. There is no “magic bullet.” The authors all agree that it is unlikely that any one reform is going to close the achievement gap all by itself. More likely, they argue, closing the achievement gap will require a combination of different strategies. The gap’s complexity makes the job of closing it difficult; indeed, as Finn asserts, there are “no easy solutions.” It can’t happen overnight, but it can happen. When they propose a number of solutions for closing the achievement gap, the authors in Generational Change work from the belief that the gap can be closed. Whether the collective sense of optimism comes from early NAEP data or from anecdotal evidence, the overwhelming attitude seems to be that while the achievement gap is complex, it is not an insurmountable or unsolvable problem. However, solving the achievement gap problem using solutions that rely on the current educational data available might easier said than done. All of the policy recommendations discussed in Generational Change are based on evidence described at times by the authors as “scant,” “speculative,” “suggestive,” or “potentially misleading.” Most authors (there is one exception) rely on data taken from National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) or on the findings of other researchers’ work to support their arguments. As to the former, the authors themselves concede that “the nation’s report card” isn’t a “perfect” measuring tool, but they defend its use by concluding that the NAEP results are the “best” data available on student achievement. As to the analyses of other researchers, the authors stress the need for additional research that is large-scale, replicable, and includes random subject assignment and provisions for longitudinal follow-up studies. Regardless of whether or not more (or better) data are needed, the authors featured in Generational Change virtually ignore the role of teachers in closing the achievement gap. This is curious indeed, especially if one considers that undoubtedly the most fundamental relationship in schools is the one that exists between student and teacher. In addition, it could be argued that in order for any reform effort to succeed in closing the achievement gap, teachers must “buy into” its implementation, and it seems unlikely that teachers would do so for policy reforms based on numbers alone. In sum, a reader of this book is hard-pressed to “walk away” with any clear-cut conclusions, since one is left with an incomplete view of how the achievement gap problem can best be solved through policy initiatives alone. Moreover, Generational Change, by ignoring the role of teachers in closing the achievement gap, is not a book practitioners should read in hopes of finding answers to the test score problem. In essence, while these this book does provide a great deal of “food for thought,” perhaps what it does best (albeit unintentionally) is underscore and highlight the existence of the pervasive “theory vs. practice” debate that exists in the education community today. So where does this leave us? Let’s revisit the mechanics scenario for a moment. Imagine that you returned two hours later and that, instead of a working car, you found the mechanics debating the best way to get the job done. It is likely that you would be frustrated. Probably, you would ultimately be more concerned with the car actually being fixed rather than with how it was accomplished. In essence, the same can be said for closing the achievement gap. In the end, does it really matter whether the goal of educational equity is achieved via school choice or preschool, via further desegregation or increased school accountability, or some amalgamation? The authors of Generational Change raise many ideas worthy of further discussion and their belief that we should take our “best shots” at ensuring educational equity for all children is laudable. However, as the authors themselves remind us, the fact remains there are no guarantees that any policy initiative (or combination of initiatives) will close the gap. But while the reader of this book will not find any “clear cut” answers to closing the achievement gap, Generational Change does present some compelling arguments that merit further discussion among the education community. About the Reviewer Karrin Lukacs is currently a doctoral student at George Mason University. Her research interests include teacher education, school reform, and social justice. She wishes to thank Dr. Gary Galluzzo for his invaluable assistance in writing this review. Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Review.