Dissecting Equity and Excellence in American Higher Education by William G. Bowen, Martin A. Kurzweil, and Eugene M. Tobin

Rant by Makeela

In Equity and Excellence in American Higher Education, it is established that urban and rural youth face many academic obstacles that are influenced by both in the home and school environments. In order to combat this inequity, we must look at methods through which we can help become gap fillers in the economic divide rather than create solutions that seem to cater only to the affluent. Our role as we go forward should serve to:

§  Banish stereotyping of existing external after school programs not traditionally linked to formal education. High-stakes testing companies must acknowledge to the roots of the organization, that contrary to popular belief among so-called “stuffed-shirt academics”, many of these groups are the true gateways to the college dream for many traditionally underserved students.

Ø  Put some money where the mission is – though organizational sustainability is paramount, it is essential that we work on methods to truly be the way to access for young people to whole the college dream is either a fleeting fantasy or nonexistent.

Ø  Internally, we can encourage individuals working outside of the traditional workday with economically disadvantaged youth.

·         Positive attention must be paid to groups trying to bring college and high-stakes college admissions test preparation to in underserved communities. All Diversity Initiatives within high-stakes testing companies should be encouraged more publicly to work together on projects that work to foster equity.

·         Investigate ways to incorporate high-stakes college admissions test readiness into the Supplementary Education groups

§  Reexamine the purpose of granting fee waivers to students for college entrance exams for which we many students are not prepared.

Ø  Explore methods through which we can utilize the method through which high-stakes college admissions test readiness can be administered to youth in a manner similar to that of the after-school programs with college prep components. Funding for this project does not have to significantly adversely affect program sustainability if we are able to:

·         obtain funding from educational foundations such as, the Robin Hood Foundation, and

·         obtain space and facilitators by partnering with national youth agencies that cater to the needs of students from low SES backgrounds to provide such youth with free or low cost test preparation activities that can effectively familiarize students with all aspects of the high-stakes college admissions examinations. We should also try to give students who may not benefit from having AP courses in their school more knowledge about  the CLEP program, so that they too can be able to have the opportunity to place out of college courses, as do their peers in more affluent secondary institutions.

§  Release disaggregate statistics comparing like candidates. Instead of only presenting one big picture of test scores, cohort data should also be analyzed by economic background.  In presenting data in this manner we consistently show specific groups at the bottom of the achievement ladder, we not only affect how students perceive themselves without giving the full picture of how classism and systemic racism adversely affects their academic development; by this same token,  it can also adversely affect our aims for a diverse staff group in that this picture can taint how we see one another’s intellectual capacity. In the chapter concerning need-blind admissions, there is a reference to an incident when Bowen and Derek Bok presented their Shape of the Well research; at the end of the presentation a young African American students comes up to thank then for the presentation and their acknowledgement that she too belonged at Harvard and was not just some fluke. In our method of presenting data by ethnicity only, we pay into this type of stereotyping and adversely affect student’s aspirations. We have traditionally touted that an “A” is not always an “A”, but we do in fact compare apples to oranges.  We can acknowledge that property taxes subsidize education creates the preexisting conditions for failure, yet we compare various test scores attained by students from low SES backgrounds  to students from communities with higher SES.  In theory this seems senseless and does not serve to show we wish to level the playing field. These comparisons invariably know linked to community income levels, which determine the quality of education in a given community.

From the chapter “Equity on a National Level”,  a report released by the Board is quoted, but what is missing are solutions.  The group  of potential applicants from SES categories started at different levels, and so, in the words of a recent high-stakes testing company's report, “an individual’s chances of entering … college remain closely correlated with family background. Only 54 % of high school graduates from the lowest income quartile enroll in college compared to 82% of those with incomes above $88,675 [the top quartile].”

Statements such as these help community activist instill in students that assessments such as the high-stakes college admissions test are not for them, as they will then become yet another negative statistic.  We must work to not only repackage our tests, but we must work to redefine educational standards in the nation that allow students to be undereducated.