Analizamos el punto hasta que diferencias fueron presentes entre estudiantes Blancos y estudiantes hispanos en sus tasas pasajeras en leer y en matemáticas sobre un período de tiempo de 16 años a través de todos los escuelas de enseñanza primaria de Tejas (N> 1.000 escuelas). Como estudiantes anticipados y Blancos tuvieron estadísticamente apreciablemente pasando más alto las tasas en leyendo y las matemáticas para 16 años, con tamaño de efecto que recorren de grande a pequeño. El vacío del logro fue notablemente más grande en leer (es decir, efecto grande calibra) que en matemáticas (es decir, pequeño moderar tamaño de efecto). Aunque los esfuerzos a todo el estado y nacionales han sido aplicados durante los últimos 16 años, el vacío en tasas pasajeras todavía refleja una falta substancial de equidad.

The concept of equity in academic achievement for all students, regardless of ethnicity, is an issue that has captured the attention of politicians, educators, and the federal government since the 1960s with the implementation of the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965 (Frankenbeg & Lee, 2002; Yell & Drasgow, 2005). The Elementary and Secondary Act (ESEA) was soon followed by the report, A Nation at Risk, in which the low achievement levels of students within the American school system were detailed (A Nation at Risk, 1983). In 2001, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was created and signed into law (No Child Left Behind, 2002).

The No Child Left Behind Act is based on “four key principles which grants greater accountability and adaptability when using funds for schools, school districts and states; more freedom and power in selection of schools for disadvantaged parents; and greater options for teaching methodology, based on empirical research” (2002, p. 9). The aim of the NCLB Act was to create opportunities for all students to be successful, regardless of their academic background, ethnicity, or socio-economic status (No Child Left Behind, 2002; Yell & Drasgow, 2005). One intention behind the implementation of the NCLB Act was to increase state and local accountability, which therefore would ideally increase the equity of all subgroups on a national level by the school year 2013-2014.

The creation and implementation of the NCLB Act has generated both support and criticism of its effectiveness in decreasing the achievement gap between White students and ethnic minority students (Celeste & Stokes-Brown, 2009; Kim & Sunderman, 2005; Lee, 2002; Lee & Wong, 2004; Powers, 2004; Ravitch, 2009; Rothstein & Jacobsen, 2009; Schiller & Muller, 2003). Proponents of the law argue that the NCLB Act has been successful and has made a lasting effect in diminishing the achievement gap between White students and minority students (Weaver, 2006; Zavadsky, 2006). Researchers have documented the success of the NCLB Act and increased success of school districts across the nation (Jennings & Rentner, 2006; Miners, 2007; Mixed Reactions to NCLB, 2005; Packer, 2007; Zavadsky, 2006). Yet, critics have argued that the NCLB Act has been a burden to school districts, personnel, and students alike (Borkowski & Sneed, 2006; Frankenberg & Orfield, 2006; Jennings & Rentner, 2006; Lewis, 2007; Manzo & Hoff, 1997; Mixed Reactions to NCLB, 2005; Tyler, 2003; Zeus, 2007). Opponents of the NCLB Act, recognizing that test scores have increased, have commented that achievement is in relation to most schools’ focus on test taking skills (Guilfoyle, 2006; Popham, 2007; Smyth, 2008) rather than a legitimate increase in achievement.

Acquisition of language and literacy, specifically vocabulary, is the catalyst for future success and academic achievement in school (Kosmoski, Gay, & Vockell, 1990). The success of minority children in education stems from the knowledge and understanding of their family, community and societal influences (Tabors & Snow, 2001). To create academic achievement among students of minority backgrounds, educators must implement strategies that encourage family and communities to support educational success (Foster, 2004). To understand how to create educational success among minority students, an understanding of the dynamics within the community and culture must be demonstrated (Frankenburg, Lee, & Orfield, 2003). The understanding of culture and academic achievement has been conceptualized by Ogbu (1981) in the creation of the cultural-ecological (CE) theory.

Cultural-ecological theory is based on the premise that minorities’ academic achievement is linked to their ethnicity and to their willingness to conform to their environment (Foster, 2004; Ogbu, 1981). In this theory, minority students have the capability to participate successfully with White students within the classroom and on standardized tests (Lynn, 2006). Differences in academic achievement are based on how the subgroup adapts and conforms to the dominant groups in educational principles (Ogbu, 1981). Ogbu (1981) further explained that conformity is chosen by minorities based on “competencies”, which determines the amount of success one receives by “…abandoning or modifying substantially their competencies for achievement…” within the dominant society (p. 425). According to the CE theory, individuals from some subgroups “chose to conform”, as long as the adaptation to the dominant group does not go against their “rules of behavior for achievement” within their own culture (Ogbu, 1981, p. 425).

After checking the assumptions for normality for students’ TAKS and TAAS reading scores and their math scores, it was determined that the datasets for all 16 years of data demonstrated evidence of non-normality. That is, the standardized skewness coefficients (i.e., the skewness value divided by its standard error) and the standardized kurtosis coefficients (i.e., the kurtosis value divided by its standard error) were almost all outside of the boundaries of +/- 3 (Onwuegbuzie & Daniel, 2002). The most likely reason for these students’ TAKS Reading and TAKS Math scores being non-normal is due to the content assessed on these tests being taught in Texas classrooms. Test items on the TAKS are designed to assess the information and skills taught in classroom settings. As such, 50% of the test scores would not be expected to be average or below, on content specifically taught to students. A final explanation is that in norm-referenced measures, student performance is compared to the performance of other peers. In the case of the two TAKS measures, student performance is compared to the number of items answered correctly. Each item receives a specific point value. Students, as noted above, who receive 40 points in Reading are rated as having passed the exam.

Because student achievement data were not normally distributed, nonparametric procedures were utilized to answer the research questions delineated above. Nonparametric procedures do not have as an assumption that test scores are normally distributed. As such, they are the optimal statistical procedure to use when the assumption of normality of data is violated.

In regard to the 2008-2009 academic year, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test revealed the presence of statistically significant differences in passing rates in reading between Hispanic students and White students, z = -26.18, p < .001, and in passing rates in math, z = -21.96, p < .001. Effect sizes were large, with a Cohen’s d of 0.93 for the reading pass rate difference, and moderate, with a Cohen’s d of 0.61 for the math pass rate difference (Cohen, 1988). Hispanic students averaged 8.89% points lower in their reading pass rates and 6.73% points lower in their math pass rates than White students.

Because of the space required to report in detail all of the statistical analyses conducted in this study, only the following information will be provided. Readers are requested to contact the authors directly for the detailed numeric phrases for each analysis. Statistically significant differences were yielded at the .001 level, using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, in reading and in math between Hispanic and White students for the other 15 years of data analyzed. Effect sizes are depicted for each analysis in Tables 9 and 10, along with the mean difference in student passing rate.

In this study, we investigated the passing rates in reading and in math over the past 16 years of Texas statewide data for White students and for Hispanic students on state-mandated assessment measures. Concerning the first research question for 16 academic school years (1993-2009) for Hispanic students and White students in reading, statistically significant differences were yielded for all years of data. From the 1993-2009 school years, the average passing rate of White students was 10.5% higher than the average passing rate of Hispanic students. Effect sizes for the 16-year time period ranged from moderate (0.58- 0.79) to large (0.84-1.41). For Hispanic and White students in reading, a large effect size extended across a 11-year time period and a moderate effect size continued across a 5-year time period.

Additionally, for the second research question for 16 academic school years for Hispanic students and White students in math, statistically significant differences were yielded for all years of data. Across the 16-year time period, the average passing rate in math for White students was 90.20% whereas, for Hispanic students, the average passing rate was 82.44% in math. For the 1993-2009 data analyzed, White students outperformed Hispanic students by an average of 7.76% in math. The effect size range for the 16-year time period ranged from small (0.30- 0.40), moderate (0.53-0.71), and large (0.85-0.92). For Hispanic and White students in math, a large effect size extended across a 6-year time period, a moderate effect size continued across an 8-year time period, and a small effect size extended for a 2-year time period.

For the 16-year time period, the trend concerning the differences in passing rates in reading between Hispanic students and White students in elementary school revealed an uninterrupted achievement gap. The passing rates in reading for White students averaged 6.73% to 30.87% higher than the average passing rates for Hispanic students across the 16-year time period. Differences in passing rates in reading between Hispanic students and White students were evident in the initial 1993-1994, 2002-2003, 2004-2005 testing years.

Pertaining to the 16-year time period, in math, the trend concerning the differences in passing rates between Hispanic students and White students revealed a continuous achievement gap. More accurately, a trend with differences between Hispanic and White students was present for all 16 years of data analyzed. Average differences between White students were 1.50% to 13.61% higher than Hispanic students for math, over the 16-year time period. Differences in passing rates in math between Hispanic students and White students were evident in the initial 1993-1994, 1994-1995, 2003-2004, and 2004-2005 testing years.

Equity in academic achievement for all students, regardless of ethnicity, is an issue that has captured the attention of politicians, educators, and the federal government (Yell & Drasgow, 2005). The exigency to create equal educational opportunities for all students was actualized during the civil rights movements and the implementation of the Elementary and Secondary Educational Act during the 1960s (Yell & Drasgow, 2005). Equity in education reached a pivotal point when the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was enacted, in an effort to create equality for all students through “…stronger accountability for results, more freedom for states and communities, proven education methods, and more choices for parents” (U.S. Department of Education, http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/4pillars.html). Provisions of the NCLB Act went into effect the following July, 2003. The foundation of the NCLB Act stemmed from the certainty that an increased role of the federal government in education would develop impartiality for all students (Yell & Drasgow, 2005).

Disparities in academic achievement have been a problematic issue among students of different ethnic groups (Alexander, Entwisle, & Olson, 2007; Borba, 2009; Borman & Kimball, 2005; Boyd-Zaharias & Pate-Bain, 2008; Butler & Stevens, 2001; Wallitt, 2008; Zhang & Cowen, 2009). Since the implementation of the NCLB Act, the effectiveness of the law narrowing the achievement gap has been contradictory (Ceci, Papierno, & Mueller-Johnson, 2002; Johnston, 1997). Proponents of the NCLB Act maintain that Black and Hispanic students in fourth grade showed “higher average reading scores in comparison to 2005 and 1992” (National Center for Education Statistics, 2007, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2007/2007496_2.pdf). Although Black students (203 points) and Hispanic students (205 points) narrowed the achievement gap by 11 and 16 points, White students (231 points) still maintained a average 27 point advantage in reading for 2007 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2007, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2007/2007496_2.pdf). The National Center for Education Statistics (2007) reported fourth grade students with LEP, averaged 188 points in Reading (Nations Report Card, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/).

Planty et al. (2009) indicated that nationally, fourth grade Hispanic students and Black students increased their mathematic scores in 2007, although a statistically significant difference was not present between Black students and White students in the 2005 and 2007 school year. Similarly, the White and Hispanic achievement gap increased in the 1990’s, but stabilized and did not narrow during the 2007 school year (Planty et al., 2009). (Grade 4 National Results, http://nationsreportcard.gov/math_2009/gr4_national.asp?subtab_id=Tab_7&tab_id=tab1#chart).

In each case and congruent with the extant literature, White students had statistically significant higher passing rates in both reading and in math than did Hispanic students. The gap between the passing rates for these two groups of students remained consistent across all 16 years of statewide data. As such, we believe that this lack of equity needs to be addressed.

To date, we contend that efforts such as the ESEA and the NCLB Act have not resulted in substantial improvements in the schooling lives of minority children. In our study, we have provided extensive documentation that the schooling lives of Hispanic children are not better as a result of the ESEA and the NCLB Act. An argument could be made that legislation such as the ESEA and the NCLB Act are good for appearance sake, but have no real substance. As such, the lack of equity is permitted to continue, if not, encouraged to continue. Accordingly, we contend that the previous segregation that occurred in school still exists, though now disguised. Prior to ESEA and the NCLB Act, members of minority groups demonstrated statistically significantly lower academic achievement scores than did White students. Years later, in fact decades later, the same achievement gap exists between members of minority groups and White students. The question that should be asked is, “Why do we continue to have a schooling system that continues the same old instructional practices in which minority group persons achieve at a poorer level than White students?” An answer to this question could be that these practices are deliberate and intentional.