Discussion post - gaps in IQ scores

Social Equity Theory and Racial-Ethnic Achievement Gaps

Clark McKown Rush University Medical Center

In the United States, racial-ethnic differences on tests of school readiness and academic achievement continue. A complete understanding of the origins of racial-ethnic achievement gaps is still lacking. This article describes social equity theory (SET), which proposes that racial-ethnic achievement gaps originate from two kinds of social process, direct and signal influences, that these two kinds of processes operate across develop- mental contexts, and that the kind of influence and the setting in which they are enacted change with age. Evidence supporting each of SET’s key propositions is discussed in the context of a critical review of research on the Black–White achievement gap. Specific developmental hypotheses derived from SET are described, along with proposed standards of evidence for testing those hypotheses.

This article offers an account of the varied social processes that contribute to mean differences in test scores between children from different racial-ethnic groups, spanning preschool to high school (Jencks & Phillips, 1998; Lee, 2002; Lee & Burkam, 2002). In the United States, on measures of school readiness and academic achievement, Asian Americans achieve higher average scores than White students, who in turn achieve higher average scores than their Black and Latino peers (Jencks & Phillips, 1998; Lee, 2002; Reardon & Galindo, 2009). Because it has received a great deal of attention, the Black– White achievement gap is used to illustrate the major points of this article. The broad goal of this article, however, is to propose a model that applies to a variety of racial-ethnic and other achievement gaps.

Racial-ethnic achievement gaps are substantial life-span phenomena. By all accounts, the magni- tude of the Black–White achievement gap is consid- erable, ranging from .5 to 1.0 SD, depending on the sample and the measure (Jencks & Phillips, 1998; Lee, 2002; Reardon & Galindo, 2009; Reardon & Robinson, 2007; Vanneman, Hamilton, Anderson, & Rahman, 2009). The Black–White achievement gap affects individuals and the generation to which they belong, beginning in early childhood and spanning

all educational levels (Farkas, 2003). In terms of school readiness, research has consistently demon- strated that prior to school entry, Black students achieve lower average scores than White students (Brooks-Gunn, Klebanov, & Duncan, 1996; Duncan, Brooks-Gunn, & Klebanov, 1994; Lee & Burkam, 2002). Over the course of elementary school, the Black–White achievement gap appears to grow (Farkas, 2003; Fryer & Levitt, 2004, 2005; Phillips, Crouse, & Ralph, 1998).

The Black–White achievement gap is a highly consequential social problem. School readiness and academic achievement are associated with the kinds of jobs and wages people are able to secure. Racial- ethnic achievement gaps that begin at school entry and persist through school completion thus can influence racial-ethnic gaps in socioeconomic status (SES) across the life span (e.g., Levin, 2009; Reardon & Robinson, 2007). In turn, SES is robustly associ- ated with health (Adler, Boyce, Chesney, & Cohen, 1994; Levin, 2009). Furthermore, the health of any democratic society is predicated on the ability of its population to make informed choices at the ballot box. When large segments of the population are inadequately educated, democracy’s health is at risk.

As with any social problem, how policy makers, practitioners, and the public formulate the Black– White achievement gap’s cause will guide what is done, and what is not done, to solve the problem (Humphreys & Rappaport, 1993; McKown, 2005;

This study was made possible by a William T. Grant Founda- tion Scholar’s Award to Clark McKown. Thanks to Laura Gum- biner, Anne Gregory, Stephen Quintana, Michael Strambler, and Rhona Weinstein for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Clark McKown, Rush NeuroBehavioral Center, 4711 Golf Road, Suite 1100, Skokie, IL 60076. Electronic mail may be sent to [email protected].

© 2012 The Author Child Development © 2012 Society for Research in Child Development, Inc. All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2013/8404-0002 DOI: 10.1111/cdev.12033

Child Development, July/August 2013, Volume 84, Number 4, Pages 1120–1136

Seidman, 1983). Almost all accounts of racial-ethnic achievement gaps acknowledge the influence of multiple processes in multiple settings (e.g., Boykin, 1986; Garcia-Coll, 1990; Weinstein, 2002; Weinstein & McKown, 1998). Nevertheless, much prior work on the Black–White achievement gap has focused on specific processes operating in a limited range of contexts. For example, some have argued that racial differences in genetic endowment cause the gap (Jensen, 1969; Rushton & Jensen, 2005). Others have focused on the contribution of SES and family fac- tors (Brooks-Gunn, Klebanov, Smith, Duncan, & Lee, 2003), cultural values (Ogbu, 2002; Thernstrom & Thernstrom, 2002), academic stereotypes (Steele & Aronson, 1995), and degree of match between home and school environments (Brice-Heath, 1983; Tharp, 1989).

More focused accounts are sometimes criticized because they do not account for the entire racial- ethnic achievement gap, even though they are often interpreted as doing so. For example, in a critical review, Sackett, Hardison, and Cullen (2004) acknowledged that one social process—stereotype threat—can depress Black students’ test scores. However, they strongly questioned common inter- pretations of the research that stereotype threat is the sole cause of the Black–White test score gap, and that if it were eliminated, the gap would there- fore disappear.

That theory and research have developed in a targeted way is understandable—evaluating multi- factorial accounts of the gap’s origin is challenging. The conceptual challenge is to broaden inquiry without mounting atheoretical “fishing expeditions” that provide few insights. The practical challenge is to muster resources to meaningfully evaluate the combined influences of multiple social processes across key developmental contexts. What is needed is a theory broad and flexible enough to account for varied sources of social influence, yet specific enough to provide a parsimonious account of the achievement gap.

The purpose of this article is to describe social equity theory (SET), a novel account of social pro- cesses that together give rise to racial-ethnic achievement gaps. SET provides a heuristic for organizing and integrating research on racial-ethnic achievement gaps. SET is proposed as a theory because: (a) it makes specific commitments about the social processes that are relevant to understand- ing the achievement gap, (b) it offers a causal explanatory framework to explain the racial-ethnic achievement gap, and (c) it generates specific, falsi- fiable hypotheses.

SET Defined

SET describes social processes that contribute to racial-ethnic achievement gaps. SET explains mean differences in achievement by members of different racial-ethnic groups. There is, of course, consider- able within-group variability in academic readiness and achievement. Within-group and between-group differences in academic readiness and achievement are distinct. SET does not address the causes of individual variability in achievement. Rather, it explains factors that together create between-group differences in school readiness and achievement.

In the context of SET, the term social processes refers to transactions between individuals, including verbal and nonverbal communication directed from one person to another. The term social processes also refers to communications between individuals and social settings, in which an event or characteristic of the setting—apart from interpersonal interactions— communicates something of social consequence. For example, a poster depicting a civil rights event on a classroom wall may communicate something of social consequence without involving an interper- sonal communicative transaction.

SET adopts an ecological perspective (Bronfen- brenner, 1977; Kelly, 1987; Spencer, 1999; Weinstein, 2002) to formulate what social processes in what contexts create and maintain racial-ethnic achieve- ment gaps. SET includes four propositions about the origins of racial-ethnic achievement gaps:

1. Two classes of social process influence racial- ethnic achievement gaps. Direct influences are social processes that support achievement. Direct influences contribute to the racial-ethnic achievement gap when they are distributed dif- ferently to people from different racial-ethnic groups. Signal influences are cues that commu- nicate negative expectations about a child’s racial-ethnic group. When children from nega- tively stereotyped groups detect such cues, this can erode achievement.

2. Signal influences depend on children’s ability to detect cues signaling a stereotyped expecta- tion, and this ability increases significantly dur- ing the elementary grades.

3. Social processes affecting the achievement gap operate across a limited range of key develop- mental settings, and the relevant settings change lawfully with age.

4. Together, relevant direct and signal influences across developmental contexts account for the achievement gap.

Social Equity Theory 1121

From these propositions, it is possible to develop specific and falsifiable developmental hypotheses about the origins of racial-ethnic achievement gaps. What follows is a review of evidence supporting the existence of direct and signal influences on the achievement gap, their combined influence, and the contexts in which they influence racial-ethnic achievement gaps. The review focuses on research into the Black–White achievement gap. A sub- sequent section articulates specific hypotheses uniquely derived from SET. The article finishes with proposed standards of evidence to guide future work on SET and its component parts.

Evidence in Support of SET Propositions

Direct Influence on the Achievement Gap

Direct influences, defined. Direct influences are social processes that promote academic achieve- ment similarly for all children in all racial-ethnic groups. SET proposes that direct influences contrib- ute to racial-ethnic achievement gaps when they are systematically and unequally distributed to mem- bers of different racial-ethnic groups. Direct influ- ences on racial-ethnic achievement gaps may unfold at home, in school, with peers, and in neighbor- hoods.

Home. In the home, particularly for young chil- dren, parent–child interactions and the relationships within which they take place are important contexts for children’s development. A substantial body of research suggests that the characteristics and qual- ity of parent–child interactions influences preaca- demic and academic outcomes. For example, Baumrind (1966; see also Baumrind & Black, 1967), focusing largely on White middle-class samples, examined the relation between parenting styles and a variety of life outcomes among children. They examined two dimensions of parenting style: sup- portiveness and demandingness. Supportiveness referred to the level of expressed parental love, nur- turance, and responsiveness. Demandingness referred to the clarity of rules and the firmness and fairness of parental discipline practices. They found that when parents provided a combination of high support and high demand—what they called “authoritative” parenting—children had better aver- age academic, social, and emotional outcomes.

There is some evidence that what normative par- enting is varies from one racial-ethnic group to the next. Mandara and Murray (2002) found that Baumrind’s (1966) parenting styles typology charac- terized Black parenting, but that Black authoritative

parenting included greater demand and less com- promise than White authoritative parenting. In addition, the relation between parenting and aca- demic outcomes can differ for different groups. For example, at least two independent research groups have found that among Black children, the higher the overall neighborhood distress, the more strict parenting is associated with positive academic out- comes (Baldwin, Baldwin, & Cole, 1990; Gonzales, Cauce, Friedman, & Mason, 1996).

Prior research thus suggests that the same par- enting practices do not always promote the same academic outcomes for children from different racial-ethnic groups, leaving open the question of whether parenting is a direct influence. The litera- ture cited above suggests that what is optimal par- enting for the development of academic outcomes may be different for children from different racial- ethnic groups and in different contexts. However, the same research suggests that for children from all racial-ethnic groups, achievement-supporting parenting—in whatever form that takes for the child’s racial-ethnic group and context—plays a key role in the development of children’s preacademic and academic skills.

For optimal parenting practices to exert a direct influence on the Black–White achievement gap, it must be present at different average levels in Black and White homes. In an important review article, Brooks-Gunn and Markman (2005) reported that there are racial-ethnic differences in parenting prac- tices. They reported that, compared to White par- ents, Black parents on average engaged less frequent warm and sensitive parenting and more frequent negative and intrusive parenting. It is important to note that effect sizes were small, indi- cating a high degree of overlap in the distributions of parenting behavior. In addition, they reported differences in the frequency and richness of lan- guage exposure and availability of books and other stimulating materials, with Black parents on aver- age engaging in less frequent conversation and having fewer books and other media available.

Parenting is thus associated with preacademic and academic skill development, and optimal parenting is, on average, more available to White children than to Black children. That does not mean that these factors necessarily explain the Black– White achievement gap. It is possible, for example, that parenting and achievement gaps both arise from a third variable, such as Black–White socioeco- nomic differences. If this were true, in empirical models with SES and parenting as independent variables and academic score as the dependent vari-

1122 McKown

able, SES, but not parenting, would be associated with academic outcomes. Existing evidence runs contrary to this conclusion. Examining the ECLS–K data, when Lee and Burkam (2002) controlled for SES, the magnitude of the racial-ethnic school readi- ness gap was reduced, but not eliminated. Simi- larly, in secondary analyses of several large data sets, Magnuson and Duncan (2006) found that SES accounts for some, but not all, of the Black–White test score gap among young children. Furthermore, in middle childhood and adolescence, accounting for SES reduces, but does not eliminate the Black– White test score gap (Phillips, Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, Klebanov, & Crane, 1998).

When SES and racial-ethnic differences in parent- ing practices are accounted for, the size of the school readiness gap is dramatically reduced. For example, two studies found that among preschool- ers, maternal warmth and engagement account for much of the Black–White gap that remained when SES was accounted for (Brooks-Gunn et al., 1996, 2003). Another study found that when controlling for SES, all the residual early childhood Black– White reading readiness gap and much of the resid- ual math readiness gap was accounted for by family factors such as the frequency of reading (Lee & Burkam, 2002).

Parenting also helps explain the Black–White achievement gap in older children. For example, Mandara, Varner, Greene, and Richman (2009) examined the relation between parenting practices and the Black–White adolescent achievement gap. They examined multiple parenting practices, such as involving adolescents in decision making, paren- tal monitoring, number of household chores, school orientation, and maternal warmth. They reported that: (a) White parents generally engage in more achievement-promoting practices than Black par- ents, (b) this difference is largely accounted for by racial-ethnic differences in SES, and (c) accounting for multiple parenting practices that promote achievement explains the entire adolescent achieve- ment gap (Mandara et al., 2009).

In summary, optimal parenting practices: (a) promote preacademic and academic outcomes for all children; (b) are systematically and unequally distrib- uted by racial-ethnic group; (c) are not an artifact of one critical potential confound, SES; and (d) account for much of the achievement gap that remains when SES is accounted for. Taken together, these findings suggest that parenting serves as a direct influence on the Black–White achievement gap.

School. The quality of instruction and the quality of student–teacher relationships may act as direct

influences on racial-ethnic achievement gaps. Each of these school factors affects achievement similarly for students from all racial-ethnic groups. In addi- tion, high-quality instruction and positive student– teacher relationships are more available for White than for Black students.

These direct influences can operate both between and within schools (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2009; Page, Murnane & Willett, 2008). In terms of between-school influences, for example, compared to White students, Black students attend schools in which instructional quality and teacher skill are, on average, lower (Clotfelter, Ladd, & Vigdor, 2004). Similarly, Lee and Burkam (2002) reported that at school entry, children from different racial-ethnic groups benefited from different levels of teacher experience, with African American children being assigned to less experienced teachers than their White and Asian peers. Thus, systematic racial- ethnic differences in the availability of experienced teachers and high-quality instruction between schools may exert a direct influence on the achieve- ment gap.

Within-school processes may also exert a direct influence on the achievement gap. One important within-school process that can contribute to the achievement gap is mean Black–White differences in the quality of instruction. For example, through- out the primary and secondary grades, Black chil- dren are more often assigned to lower tracks than their White peers (Entwisle, Alexander, & Olson, 1997; Lucas & Berends, 2002). Children in different tracks are in turn exposed to different quality instruction, with students in higher tracks exposed to interesting and challenging material. Students in lower tracks, in contrast, are exposed to work that is repetitive, uninteresting, and focused on behav- ioral control (Boykin, 1986; Oakes, 2005; Weinstein, 2002). The quality of curriculum is thus a direct influence because it is associated with academic outcomes and it varies systematically by racial- ethnic group.

Black–White mean differences in the quality of relationships between teachers and students can also contribute to the achievement gap. The level of closeness and caring children and adolescents expe- rience with their teachers influences academic outcomes (Gregory & Weinstein, 2004; Hamre & Pianta, 2005; Weinstein, 2002). On average, White students enjoy closer and more caring relationship with their teachers than Black students. For exam- ple, in a study that included 197 preschool and kin- dergarten teachers, Saft and Pianta (2001) found that White students enjoy less conflict with and

Social Equity Theory 1123

dependency on their teachers than their Black peers. Similarly, in a study that included 607 academically at-risk first graders, teachers reported higher quality relationships with White compared to Black stu- dents (Hughes, Gleason, & Zhang, 2005). Others have found that teachers on average expect more of White students than Black students with similar records of achievement (Baron, Tom, & Cooper, 1985; Ferguson, 2008; McKown & Weinstein, 2008). Thus, there is evidence that the quality of teacher– student relationships may be a direct influence on the achievement gap: Those relationships are associ- ated with academic outcomes and are, on average, higher quality for White students than their Black peers.

Educational field trials have provided evidence that equalizing instructional quality can reduce the gap. Success for All, a literacy curriculum that com- bines intensive focus on phonics and adherence to particular instructional practices, has been shown to reduce the achievement gap. Furthermore, the longer students are exposed to the curriculum, the greater the reduction in the gap (Slavin & Madden, 2001). Similarly, KIPP schools, a small network of charter schools that have extended hours, culturally appropriate instructional practices, individualized mentoring, and structured instruction, have shown promising evidence of promoting racial-ethnic minority achievement (Educational Policy Institute, 2005). These lines of evidence suggest that the qual- ity of instruction is a direct influence on the achievement gap, with differential allocation of instructional quality contributing to Black–White differences in learning and achievement.

In summary, several school-based resources have a critical influence on achievement, including the quality of teachers, curriculum, and teacher–student relationships. There is evidence that White students, on average, benefit from better teachers, more chal- lenging curriculum, and better relationships with teachers than their Black peers with similar records of achievement. Thus, these school factors likely exert a direct influence on the Black–White achieve- ment gap.

Peers. Peer relationships and peer norms may exert a direct influence on the achievement gap. For example, ethnographic research suggests that for Black youth, the stigma associated with academic ambition and its connection with White culture can contribute to Black underachievement (Austen- Smith & Fryer, 2005; Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Majors & Billson, 1993). Consistent with this formu- lation, Ferguson (2008) reported survey results sug- gesting that Black suburban high school students

were more likely than their White peers to report withholding academic effort because of concern about how others might view them. Similarly, Graham (2001) reported that some racial-ethnic minority students value low-performing peers more than high-performing peers. Other studies, how- ever, find less support for the effects of peer culture on the achievement gap (Ainsworth-Darnell & Downey, 1998; Cook & Ludwig, 1998). In contrast to the literatures on the influence of family factors and schooling, less empirical research has examined the influence of peers on the achievement gap. As a result, it remains largely an open question what peer influences most strongly influence achievement at what age, whether those influences are present in different amounts among children from different racial-ethnic groups, and overall, how much peer influences contribute to the achievement gap.

Neighborhood. Neighborhoods may exert a direct influence on the achievement gap. For example, the “collective efficacy” of neighborhoods, defined as the level of community cohesion and social support, may influence a variety of outcomes, including achievement (Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997). In communities with strong cohesion, neigh- bors support one another as they work to achieve a range of goals, including the education of their chil- dren. Cook, Herman, Phillips, and Settersten (2002) found that the higher the neighborhood cohesion, the better students performed in school. Further- more, children from different racial-ethnic groups remain largely segregated from one another within and across neighborhoods (Reardon et al., 2009) that differ in levels of achievement-promoting neighborhood cohesion. It is therefore plausible that neighborhood cohesion would exert a direct influ- ence on the achievement gap. However, further research is necessary before a strong conclusion can be drawn.

Factors outside the realm of direct influences. Many phenomena partially fulfill the definition of a direct influence, but are not direct influences as defined by SET. Many of these factors are critical contexts that may themselves influence the proximal social transactions described by SET. For example, family structure (McLanahan & Percheski, 2008), SES (Yeung & Conley, 2008), and family wealth (Orr, 2003) are associated with achievement. In addition, there are mean racial-ethnic differences in family structure, SES, and family wealth. These pheno- mena thus embody two characteristics of direct influences: (a) they are associated with achieve- ment, and (b) they systematically differ between racial-ethnic groups.

1124 McKown

However, none of these phenomena is a social process, defined as a communication between indi- viduals or between individuals and settings. As a result, they do not meet SET’s definition of a direct influence. SET is thus narrowly tailored to explain the proximal social processes influencing the achievement gap. At the same time, there is very little doubt that broader contexts play a critical role in shaping the achievement gap. SET conceptualizes social processes as the mechanisms through which broader contexts shape the achievement gap. This conceptualization is consistent with work suggest- ing, for example, that the relation between SES and developmental outcomes is mediated by more prox- imal social processes (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997; Garcia-Coll, 1990; Guo, Brooks-Gunn, & Harris, 1996).

Summary. Social processes at home, at school, in the peer group, and in neighborhoods are associ- ated with academic outcomes. Furthermore, these social processes are distributed unequally to chil- dren from different racial-ethnic groups. SET pre- dicts that children from different racial-ethnic groups with similar exposure to these direct influ- ences will achieve more similarly than children who have different exposure to those direct influ- ences. However, SET also predicts that accounting for multiple direct influences will, in general, reduce, but not eliminate racial-ethnic differences in achieve- ment. In addition to direct influences, other factors, called signal influences, contribute to the gap. As a result, even a comprehensive account of direct influences would not entirely explain the gap, par- ticularly in late elementary school and beyond.

Signal Influences on the Achievement Gap

Signal influences, defined. Signal influences are social events that signal to members of negatively stereotyped groups that they are devalued because of their group membership (Inzlicht & Ben-Zeev, 2000; Mendoza-Denton, Downey, Purdie, Davis, & Pietrzak, 2002; Steele, 1997; Steele & Aronson, 1995). Signal influences may be overt, such as when a person is told directly that people from his or her group are not capable. Signal influences may also be ambiguous, such as when one person communi- cates through nonverbal behavior negative feelings toward another. Settings may also propagate signal influences outside of the context of an interpersonal encounter. For example, exposure to material that makes a child’s racial-ethnic group membership salient can trigger signal influences with no inter- personal interaction (Ambady, Shih, Kim, & Pittinsky,

2001). When the target of an interpersonal or setting signal is from a stereotyped racial-ethnic group, the target may interpret that signal as a communi- cation that the target is devalued because of his or her racial-ethnic group membership. Such a signal can interfere with performance in a stereotyped domain (Steele & Aronson, 1995). To someone from a nonstereotyped group, the same social events will not be interpreted as devaluing a self- relevant identity.

Signal influences are transactional. They do not exist solely in the mind of stereotyped individuals. Neither do they exist solely in the social setting with which the individual is engaged. Consistent with the definition of stereotype threat (Steele & Aronson, 1995), signal influences occur when an event in a social setting activates a concern in the mind of a stereotyped individual—consciously or not—that he or she may be judged on the basis of the stereotype. This process is distinct from self- stereotyping processes, which are presumed to occur in the mind of the stereotyped individual. It is also distinct from direct influences, although some social processes, described later, can operate as either direct or signal influences.

A paradigmatic example from the stereotype threat literature is that of the standardized testing situation. Although outwardly the same for all chil- dren, when testing conditions highlight that a chal- lenging test is diagnostic of ability, members of academically stereotyped groups may become con- cerned that their performance will be judged in light of a stereotype about their group’s intellectual ability, in turn lowering performance (McKown & Strambler, 2009; McKown & Weinstein, 2003; Steele & Aronson, 1995). The same event may communi- cate different meanings to children, depending on the prevailing cultural stereotype about each child’s racial-ethnic group. For children from academically stereotyped racial-ethnic groups, the testing situa- tion may signal the possibility of being devalued, which, in turn, can hamper performance.

Routine signal events. What characteristics of developmental contexts are likely to propagate sig- nal influences on children’s achievement, producing racial-ethnic differences in achievement? Experi- mental evidence has identified several kinds of events that propagate signal influences, including characterizing a test as diagnostic of natural ability (McKown & Strambler, 2009; McKown & Wein- stein, 2003, Study 2; Steele & Aronson, 1995, Experi- ment 1), cuing participants to think about a stereotyped self-relevant identity before completing a task (Ambady et al., 2001), and telling partici-

Social Equity Theory 1125

pants directly that members of their group rou- tinely perform worse on a task than members of other groups (Aronson et al., 1999). More common- place factors, such as group composition, can create signal influences on academic performance, with minority status itself potentially signaling stereo- typed expectations to minority group members (Inzlicht & Ben-Zeev, 2000; Murphy, Steele, & Gross, 2007).

Signal influences have been consistently demon- strated in the lab. It is less clear what events in daily life communicate to children that their intel- lectual ability is devalued because of their racial- ethnic group. Research on interpersonal expectancy effects suggests that teacher expectations may exert signal influences. In many classrooms, teachers expect more of White and Asian children than Black and Latino children with similar records of achievement (Baron et al., 1985; McKown & Wein- stein, 2008; Rubovits & Maehr, 1973). Teacher dif- ferential treatment toward children from different racial-ethnic groups can be interpreted by children as a signal that the intellectual ability of their group is devalued. If this were so, the relation between teacher expectations and student achievement would be stronger for children from stereotyped groups than for their nonstereotyped peers. Indeed, the relation between teacher expectations and stu- dent achievement is more robust among Black than White students (Jussim, Eccles, & Madon, 1996), with low teacher expectations associated more strongly with negative academic outcomes for Black than White students (McKown & Weinstein, 2002).

It is conceivable that many events and inter- actions in the daily routine of schools signal to students from stereotyped groups that their intellec- tual ability is devalued. Those events may affect the extent to which students who are the targets of stereotypes feel that school is fair. Indeed, correla- tional studies suggest that high levels of perceived unfairness at school are related to higher rates of disciplinary referrals and disruptive behavior, and this effect is particularly strong for Black and Latino students (Gottfredson, 2001; Gregory & Weinstein, 2008; Tyler & Huo, 2000). When children from aca- demically stereotyped racial-ethnic groups believe teachers are unfair, this belief may activate cultural narratives about racial injustice, signaling that they are devalued because of their ethnicity. This may in turn have a negative impact on the academic achievement of children from stereotyped racial- ethnic groups.

Signal influences and interpretive skill. Signal influ- ences specifically and exclusively affect children

from negatively stereotyped groups. Negative stereo- types about the academic ability of Blacks persist (Bobo, 2001), although it is no longer socially acceptable to express those stereotypes directly (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1998). Furthermore, many people who hold overtly egalitarian beliefs nonethe- less may hold implicit stereotypes that lead them to appraise and respond to people on the basis of their race or ethnicity (Baron & Banaji, 2006; Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986; McConahay, Hardee, & Batts, 1981). Social norms against racism and the persistence of implicit stereotypes mean that in the contemporary American context, stereotypes are often expressed ambiguously (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986). For exam- ple, a White teacher who is formal and nervous when interacting with a particular Black student may be expressing a formal, socially anxious style. Alternatively, she may feel that Black students are not capable, and her formality and discomfort are expressions of this stereotypic belief (McKown & Strambler, 2009). How the student interprets the origin of the teacher’s behavior is critical in deter- mining whether the teacher will propagate a signal influence.

The consequences of ambiguous signal events depend on children’s awareness of stereotypes about their group. For ambiguous signals to propa- gate signal influences, children must know that others might devalue their ability because of their group membership. Equipped with this understand- ing, children can interpret ambiguous interpersonal behavior as a reflection of racial-ethnic stereotypes. Although these capacities must be present for ambiguous signals to have a negative influence on achievement, with adults and children, prior research suggests that stereotyped individuals do not have to be consciously aware of a signal influence for it to have a negative effect (Steele & Aronson, 1995). Rather, children and adults must be generally aware of self-relevant stereotypes in the performance domain for ambiguous signals to propagate negative performance (McKown & Strambler, 2009; McKown & Weinstein, 2003).

Children’s thinking about others, about society, and about race and ethnicity changes dramatically in the first 12 years of life (Hirschfeld, 1996; Killen, Rutland, & Ruck, 2011; Killen & Stangor, 2001; Nesdale & Flesser, 2001; Quintana, 1998; Rutland, Cameron, Milne, & McGeorge, 2005). In turn, how children appraise and interpret social events affects their response to those events (e.g., McKown & Strambler, 2009; Spencer, 1999). By preschool, American children have developed a conception of race (Hirschfeld, 1996). By elementary school,

1126 McKown

children use group membership in their judgments about the fairness of social exclusion (Killen, Lee- Kim, McGlothlin, & Stangor, 2002). In this age range, children become aware of the relation between group membership and intergroup liking (Quintana, 1998). Specifically, between the ages of 6 and 10, children become aware that others endorse stereotypic beliefs that may devalue their group’s intellectual ability (Brown & Bigler, 2005; Brown, Bigler, & Chu, 2010; McKown & Strambler, 2009; McKown & Weinstein, 2003; Quintana, 1998, 2008).

All these lines of evidence suggest that beginning around third grade, and commonly by the end of elementary school, typically developing children have the social knowledge and capacity to interpret events that, on their surface, are ambiguous in terms of whether they reflect biased beliefs or atti- tudes, as expressions of stereotypes or prejudices. The ability to interpret events as signals about what others believe about a child’s group is, in turn, highly consequential.

For example, children’s growing stereotype con- sciousness can affect their response to social and academic events. McKown and Strambler (2008) found that when children were aware of broadly held stereotypes, they were more likely to interpret negative interethnic encounters as reflecting racial animus. Furthermore, children from academically negatively stereotyped racial-ethnic groups (African American and Latino) who were aware of broadly held cultural stereotypes performed more poorly on a cognitive task when the task was described as diagnostic of ability than when the same task was described as a problem-solving task. For children from nonstereotyped racial-ethnic groups and for children from stereotyped racial- ethnic groups who were unaware of broadly held stereotypes, the conditions of testing did not affect performance (McKown & Strambler, 2009; McKown & Weinstein, 2003). These findings suggest that when children from stereotyped groups become aware of broadly held stereotypes, signal influences can hamper performance on cognitive and aca- demic tasks.

Randomized field trials of interventions suggest that children and youth can be inoculated against naturally occurring signal influences, further dem- onstrating their existence and impact. For example, drawing from on motivation theory (Dweck, 1988), Good, Aronson, and Inzlicht (2003) found that teaching middle school girls to believe that intelligence depends on effort and that academic difficulties are situational reduced the effects of stereotype threat on math test performance. Draw-

ing from self-affirmation theory (Steele, 1988), Cohen, Garcia, Apfel, and Master (2006) found when African American students participated in an exercise in which they wrote a paragraph about their values and why those values were important, they showed lower levels of stereotype activation and received higher grades than their African American peers in a control condition. By successfully inoculating children against signal influences outside the lab, these studies indirectly demonstrate the existence of signal influences in naturalistic settings.

Child Factors

The foregoing discussion of direct and signal influences emphasizes social processes and the social settings in which they take place. This raises the question of what role child factors play in caus- ing and maintaining racial-ethnic achievement gaps. There is little doubt that children’s individual biological and cognitive characteristics affect their academic outcomes. For example, the better chil- dren perform on cognitive tasks such as those rep- resented in IQ tests, the better children do academically (Neisser et al., 1995). Furthermore, how children understand and process information, and therefore what they can learn, changes norma- tively with age (Piaget, 1972).

It is beyond the scope of this article to review the many ways individual child characteristics and developmental processes contribute to achievement. An underlying premise of SET is that mean racial- ethnic group differences in achievement are the product of social processes that transpire between children and peers, between children and adults, and between children and social settings. Group differences in IQ test scores are also presumed to arise from these same social forces. A corollary pre- mise of SET is that although individual child factors influence within-group variability in achievement, they do not, in general, explain mean racial-ethnic group differences in achievement. There is one important exception: The impact of signal influ- ences depends on children’s awareness of broadly held societal stereotypes, which changes predictably with age (McKown & Strambler, 2008; McKown & Weinstein, 2003).

Overlap and Boundaries Between Direct and Signal Influences

Direct and signal influences are distinct mecha- nisms by which a social event may affect group

Social Equity Theory 1127

differences on the Black–White achievement gap. Some events are clearly and only signal events. For example, the conditions of testing may signal to members of academically stereotyped racial-ethnic groups that their intellectual ability is devalued. Those conditions create unequal outcomes exclu- sively through their signal properties. Other events are clearly and only direct influences. For example, enrollment in schools that deliver high-quality instruction is an important resource for the devel- opment of talent (Hamre & Pianta, 2005; Weinstein, 2002). Higher quality instruction is associated with greater opportunities to learn and achieve. To the extent that children from different racial-ethnic groups are enrolled in different schools with instruction whose quality is systematically different, this will exert an influence on racial-ethnic achieve- ment gaps through a direct influence on learning and achievement. If students are unaware that the allocation of resources is unequal, this form of dis- crimination will exert only a direct influence on racial-ethnic achievement gaps.

Some social phenomena can contribute to the achievement gap through direct influence, signal influence, or both (McKown, Gregory, & Weinstein, 2010). Research on teacher expectations provides an illustration. Teachers who have higher expectations of students tend to behave more warmly, provide better instruction, and offer greater student auton- omy, all of which is associated with greater learn- ing (Brophy & Good, 1970; Weinstein, 2002). In some classrooms, teachers expect more of their White students than they do of their Black students with similar records of achievement (Baron et al., 1985; McKown & Weinstein, 2008). Teacher expecta- tions, allocated in part on the basis of child race, may lead teachers to provide better quality instruc- tion to White students than to Black students with similar records of achievement. This may in turn lead to Black–White differences in achievement. In this case, the differential allocation of instructional quality is a direct influence, with no requirement that children notice the differential treatment for it to contribute to the achievement gap. However, it is also possible that some students, noticing the teacher’s differential treatment of children from dif- ferent racial-ethnic groups, will interpret the tea- cher’s low expectations as reflecting the teacher’s belief that some racial-ethnic groups are not capable. If so, this may lead to a signal influence. Teacher expectations may thus exert direct and sig- nal influences on the Black–White achievement gap.

Although some experiences can operate as both direct and signal events, the distinction between the

two kinds of influences is nonetheless useful. From a theoretical perspective, distinguishing direct and signal influences provides a heuristic for evaluating two distinct pathways through which events may influence the achievement gap. From an applied perspective, how we understand the mechanisms through which events affect the achievement gap will shape the policies and practices that are deployed to reduce the gap. For example, if teacher expectations are seen as exclusively exerting a direct influence on the gap, then the best prescrip- tion for reducing its influence is to equalize teacher behavior that communicates expectations. Attempts to do so have met with mixed results (Gottfredson, Marciniak, Birdseye, & Gottfredson, 1995; Weinstein et al., 1991). In contrast, if teacher expectations are seen as exerting a signal influence, then a prescrip- tion might be to inoculate students against the untoward effects of signal influences by, for exam- ple, teaching children that achievement is the prod- uct of hard work (Good et al., 2003), or having children affirm important positive self-relevant val- ues (Cohen et al., 2006). If, as the evidence sug- gests, teacher expectations can exert direct and signal influences on the Black–White achievement gap, the focus might include equalizing teacher behavior and inoculating students.

Combined Effects of Direct and Signal Influences

SET proposes that multiple social processes oper- ate together within and across key developmental contexts to influence racial-ethnic achievement gaps. Thus, with the goal of identifying the universe of influences on the achievement gap, it is insufficient to account only for direct influences or only for sig- nal influences. It is also generally insufficient to account for direct and signal influences in a single context. SET incorporates the proposition that direct and signal influences can operate in any key devel- opmental context. The specific processes may be similar or different in different contexts. In addition, the proportion of the variance in a group difference resulting from direct and signal influences may be different in each context and in each developmental phase. However, the theory proposes that only by identifying salient direct and signal influences in key developmental contexts and by combining effects across contexts can we come to a full accounting of any racial-ethnic achievement gap.

Each of SET’s propositions is supported from the empirical literature. However, the overall proposi- tion that the achievement gap is better accounted for by combining the effects of different social

1128 McKown

processes occurring in different key developmental contexts remains largely unexamined. Some research- ers have examined the combined association of more than one direct influence on racial-ethnic achievement gaps (e.g., Brooks-Gunn et al., 1996, 2003; Lee & Burkam, 2002). However, no studies have examined multiple signal influences, or the combined effects of direct and signal influences across contexts. SET lends itself to the study of multiple influences across multiple contexts simultaneously. It is con- ceivable that influences within and across develop- mental contexts would combine additively or interactively to produce the Black–White achieve- ment gap. How varied forces described by SET combine to produce the gap is an important area for future investigation.

Universe of Influential Developmental Contexts

A key proposition of SET is that social processes that cause and maintain the achievement gap may operate in and across multiple developmental con- texts (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Kelly, 1987; Weinstein, 2002). A context is defined as any setting in which an individual transacts social interactions with impor- tant others or in which setting characteristics signal information of social value. Developmental contexts in childhood include family, school, peer network, and neighborhood. During different developmental epochs, the contexts in which social processes influ- ence the achievement gap will change. As children transition to adulthood, new contexts become impor- tant, including the workplace and marriage. Within each of these contexts are varied “microsettings,” in any one of which, direct or signal influences may unfold. What contexts are the most important focus of inquiry and intervention should be guided by an understanding of the phenomenon of interest, theory, and the weight of evidence.

The earlier review of direct and signal influences suggests that there is good reason to focus on fam- ily, school, peers, and neighborhoods. Specifically, the literature suggests that: (a) family factors such as parenting practices influence the achievement gap; (b) some of the achievement gap can be attrib- uted to racial-ethnic differences in the availability of high-quality instruction; (c) signal influences in naturalistic settings, particularly school, contribute to the achievement gap; (d) peers may exert an influence on children’s academic achievement; and (e) neighborhood psychological resources influence achievement and may influence the achievement gap. Furthermore, the foregoing literature review suggests that direct and signal influences may

unfold in any one of these developmental settings. One of the most substantial unanswered questions raised by SET is what direct and signal influences operate in what developmental settings at what age to explain the achievement gap.

Developmental Hypotheses Uniquely Derived From SET

SET leads to specific predictions about: (a) the rela- tive influence of direct versus signal influences on the achievement gap at different ages, (b) what developmental contexts are likely to have the great- est influence on the achievement gap at what age, and (c) what set of direct and signal influences in what contexts are sufficient to account for the achievement gap.

Age-Related Differences in the Contribution of Direct and Signal Influences

SET predicts that the relative impact of direct and signal influences will change with age. In preschool through second grade, most children are not yet aware that others endorse stereotypic beliefs (McKown & Strambler, 2009; McKown & Weinstein, 2003; Quintana, 1998, 2008). In those early years, then, only the most overt expression of stereotypes could be interpreted by a child as being self-relevant. Under these developmental constraints, children cannot interpret more ambiguous cues that a child may be judged on the basis of group membership as a devaluation of that group. By third grade, most children have become aware of broadly held cultural stereotypes. Becoming aware of stereotypes is in turn associated with susceptibility to stereotype threat effects induced through test instructions (McKown & Strambler, 2009; McKown & Weinstein, 2003).

SET thus predicts that in preschool through sec- ond grade, racial-ethnic differences in test scores are equal to the combination, across key developmental contexts, of direct influences only. Why? Signal influ- ences cannot affect children when they have not yet developed the capacity to detect those signals. As children develop the ability to interpret social cues as reflecting stereotypes, a full explanation of the achievement gap requires accounting for both direct and signal influences. Between third grade and ado- lescence, most children become aware of broadly held stereotypes. SET thus predicts that the relative impact of direct and signal influences on the Black– White achievement gap will shift from exclusively direct influences through second grade, to a prepon-

Social Equity Theory 1129

derance of direct influences and some signal influ- ences between third and fifth grades, to a more equal balance between direct and signal influences thereaf- ter (see Figure 1).

The empirical literature is generally consistent with this hypothesis. Among preschoolers, account- ing for multiple direct influences eliminates or nearly eliminates school readiness and test perfor- mance gaps (Brooks-Gunn et al., 2003; Lee & Burkam, 2002). In contrast, with middle school and high school students, controlling for direct influ- ences is insufficient to account entirely for the achievement gap (Duncan & Magnuson, 2005; but see Mandara et al., 2009; Yeung & Pfeiffer, 2009). According to SET, this is because beyond second grade, controlling for direct influences on the Black– White achievement gap does not account for signal influences and thus leaves a residual portion of the gap unexplained. When children develop awareness of broadly held cultural stereotypes, to account for the entire gap requires accounting for both direct and signal influences (McKown & Strambler, 2009; McKown & Weinstein, 2003).

Age-Related Differences in the Contribution of Social Influences Across Contexts

Prior work suggests what settings are most influ- ential in each epoch of a child’s life. In infancy and toddlerhood, children spend most of their time and relational energy with parents and other caregivers. After the transition to elementary school, first teach- ers, then peers, play increasingly prominent roles in children’s daily social experiences. Late in elemen-

tary school, as they become more independent, chil- dren may have more exposure to neighborhood influences. In adolescence, close friendships, peer networks, and romantic partners may become prominent influences, and parents exert less direct influence over their children’s daily lives.

In light of these developmental changes, SET hypothesizes that prior to school entry, only home influences affect the Black–White achievement gap. After school entry and through second grade, social processes at home and at school affect the Black–White achievement gap, with home pro- cesses initially contributing more to the gap than school processes. As school becomes more academi- cally focused through fifth grade, social processes in school play an increasing role in contributing to the gap. After second grade, peer relationships move from more transient play to more enduring “chumships.” At this point, peers may begin to contribute to the gap, and this influence will increase in adolescence. In late elementary school, as children become more independent in the com- munity, neighborhood effects on the achievement gap come into play, and grow incrementally through adolescence. This hypothesis is depicted in Figure 2.

Intervention Implications

Developmental hypotheses derived from SET provide the basis for creating a developmentally informed sequence of interventions. Specifically, to reduce the school readiness gap, preschool interven- tions should promote positive parenting and achievement-supporting home settings. From kin- dergarten through second grade, in addition to

Figure 1. Hypothesized relation between age and the proportion of the achievement gap accounted for by direct and signal influ- ences.

Figure 2. Hypothesized proportion of the achievement gap influ- enced in different developmental contexts, by age.

1130 McKown

family support, interventions should focus on pro- viding strong instruction and positive teacher–child relationships. From third grade on, in addition to parent support and strong academic support, inter- ventions should inoculate children against the effects of signal influences and should endeavor to reduce the overall level of stereotyping at school. From third grade on, interventions should also be implemented to promote positive peer norms for achievement. From fifth grade on, in addition to the aforementioned kinds of support, interventions should increase neighborhood collective efficacy or, if that is not feasible, help children cope with neigh- borhood influences. SET predicts that if direct and signal influences salient in a particular setting and a developmental epoch are addressed, the Black– White achievement gap would be eliminated.

The Sufficiency of SET

Research on the achievement gap has been marked by a consistent partial accounting for the gap. SET holds promise to be a sufficient explanation for the Black–White achievement gap across devel- opmental epochs. Not all possible developmental processes and theories are incorporated into SET. Furthermore, other social forces not incorporated into SET may contribute to racial-ethnic achievement gaps. As a result, two forms of SET are possible. If developmental phenomena and the full universe of social forces are sufficiently accounted for by SET, a strong form of the theory will withstand empirical scrutiny: Direct and signal influences, combined across key developmental contexts, will explain the entire Black–White achievement gap. If on the other hand, relevant developmental processes or social forces are not integrated into SET, a weak form of the theory may be more reasonable: Direct and sig- nal influences, combined across key developmental contexts, will explain more of the achievement gap than current models do, but other forces, not accounted for by SET also contribute to the gap. Whether the strong or weak form of SET is more jus- tified is a matter of empirical inquiry.

Standards of Evidence

Existing evidence supports many of the elements of SET. However, further research is needed to evalu- ate the theory as a whole. A judicious combination of naturalistic and experimental methods can be used to test the components of SET and the theory in its entirety. Three standards are required, one for

each of the following: (a) evidence of direct influ- ences, (b) evidence of signal influences, and (c) evi- dence supporting the whole of SET.

Evidence of Direct Influences

The standard of evidence for the presence of a direct influence on the Black–White achievement gap is as follows: If a social process has a direct influence, Black and White children who share simi- lar exposure to the direct influence should achieve more similarly than children with different expo- sure to the direct influence. Furthermore, the rela- tion between hypothesized direct influences and achievement should be similar for children from all racial-ethnic groups. For example, Black and White children who live in comparably cohesive neighbor- hoods should achieve more similarly than children who live in neighborhoods that differ in their cohe- siveness. In statistical terms, controlling for direct influences should reduce the magnitude of the rela- tion between racial-ethnic group membership and achievement, and there should be no ethnicity by direct influence interaction.

Naturalistic research examining the relation between direct influences and the Black–White achievement gap generally examines whether the magnitude of the relation between child race-ethnic- ity and achievement is reduced when hypothesized direct influences are included in a statistical model. For example, this method has been used to demon- strate that comparing children with similar home environments accounts for much of the Black–White achievement gap (Brooks-Gunn et al., 1996; Lee & Burkam, 2002). Further research using naturalistic methods will help clarify the nature and magnitude of the combined effect of direct influences on the gap. The benefit of naturalistic studies is that they tend to be more feasible than true experiments. The drawback is that they do not permit strong causal inferences.

True experiments can lead to inferences about the causal impact of direct influences. For example, the New Hope Project, a randomized antipoverty program, found that income supplements, child- care assistance, and health-care benefits to full-time working poor families led to academic, social, and emotional benefits to children, particularly boys (Huston et al., 2001, 2005). Experiments permit stron- ger inferences about the causal relation between hypothesized direct influences and achievement. Although they are well suited to isolating the cau- sal influence of a single independent variable, true experiments can be costly.

Social Equity Theory 1131

Evidence of Signal Influences

If a setting characteristic has a signal influence on the achievement gap, it should be true that in the presence of the signal, members of stereotyped racial-ethnic groups only will perform more poorly than when the signal is absent. In statistical terms, signal influences will produce an Ethnicity × Signal Strength interaction. More specifically, the stronger the signal, the more poorly children from stereo- typed groups will perform; in contrast, children from nonstereotyped groups will perform similarly regardless of the level of the signal.

As with direct influences, signal influences can be assessed using experimental or naturalistic designs. With regard to experimental studies, a raft of studies on stereotype threat has demonstrated that a variety of events can signal to children and adults from stereotyped groups that their intelli- gence is devalued, causing reduced performance (Nguyen & Ryan, 2008; Steele & Aronson, 1995; Walton & Spencer, 2009). Naturalistic methods could also be used to examine whether members of stereotyped groups, in the presence of presumed signal events, are more negatively affected than members of nonstereotyped groups. Experimental and naturalistic methods have been used, for exam- ple, in studies demonstrating that teachers expect more of White and Asian students than their Black and Latino peers with similar records of achieve- ment (Baron et al., 1985; McKown & Weinstein, 2008) and that the relation between teacher expecta- tions and achievement is stronger for Black stu- dents than for White students (Jussim et al., 1996), particularly when teacher expectations are negative (McKown & Weinstein, 2002).

Evidence Supporting SET as a Whole

Evidence supporting the constituent elements of SET does not necessarily support SET as a whole. Many studies presented in this article support the constituent elements of SET by demonstrating that a direct or signal influence accounts for part of the Black–White achievement gap. However, no study has totally accounted for the gap at all ages and no intervention or policy solution has totally elimi- nated it. A full assessment of SET will involve assessing the effect, across developmental contexts and ages, of multiple direct and signal influences. Ideally, such an examination would be undertaken using naturalistic designs and field experiments. Doing so would provide a fair test of the theory as a whole and would provide useful information

about comprehensive strategies to reduce educa- tional inequality.

Conclusion

SET is a general, flexible model of social processes that contribute to the American racial-ethnic achievement gaps. SET proposes that racial-ethnic achievement gaps are the result of the combination, across key developmental contexts, of direct and signal influ- ences. A central goal in developing SET is to pro- vide a parsimonious model from which hypotheses can be developed and systematically, programmati- cally, and empirically tested. Although the review of evidence presented in this article focused on the Black–White achievement gap, SET provides a framework for understanding, examining, and reducing any racial-ethnic achievement gap. Fur- thermore, SET may prove useful in explaining socioeconomic achievement gaps, and sex differ- ences in science, math, and engineering occupations (Cheryan & Plaut, 2010). SET may also offer a use- ful heuristic for understanding the origins of inequalities in other domains, such as racial-ethnic differences in disciplinary referrals at school (Greg- ory, Skiba, & Noguera, 2010) and employment out- comes (Pager & Shepherd, 2008). The accuracy and general applicability of SET to other forms of inequality are empirical questions to be vigorously investigated.

Prior research on the Black–White achievement gap provides support for each of the constituent elements of SET. Skeptics will rightly conclude that support for SET’s constituent elements is not the same as support for the theory as a whole. However, there have been no comprehensive assessments of SET as a singular explanation of the Black–White achievement gap. Although it poses methodological challenges, only by conducting such research can we understand the full range of social processes that contribute to this significant social problem. In so doing, we may come to more efficient and effective policies and practices to reduce inequalities that run afoul of core American ideals of fair play.

References

Adler, N. E., Boyce, T., Chesney, M. A., & Cohen, S. (1994). Socioeconomic status and heath: The challenge of the gradient. American Psychologist, 49, 15–24.

Ainsworth-Darnell, J. W., & Downey, D. B. (1998). Assessing the oppositional culture explanation for

1132 McKown

racial/ethnic differences in school performance. Ameri- can Sociological Review, 63, 536–553.

Ambady, N., Shih, M., Kim, A., & Pittinsky, T. L. (2001). Stereotype susceptibility in children: Effects of identity activation on quantitative performance. Psychological Science, 12, 385–390.

Aronson, J., Lustina, M. J., Good, C., Keough, K., Steele, C. M., & Brown, J. (1999). When White men can’t do math: Necessary and sufficient factors in stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 29–46.

Austen-Smith, D., & Fryer, R. G. (2005). An economic analysis of “acting White.” Quarterly Journal of Economic Science, 120, 551–583.

Baldwin, A. L., Baldwin, C., & Cole, R. E. (1990). Stress- resistant families and stress-resistant children. In J. E. Rolf, A. S. Masten, D. Cicchetti, K. H. Nuechterlein, & S. Weintraub (Eds.), Risk and protective factors in the development of psychopathology (pp. 257–280). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Baron, A. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). The development of implicit attitudes: Evidence of race evaluations from ages 6 and 10 and adulthood. Psychological Science, 17, 53–58.

Baron, R. M., Tom, D. Y., & Cooper, H. M. (1985). Social class, race, and teacher expectations. In J. B. Dusek (Ed.), Teacher expectancies (pp. 251–270). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative control on child behavior. Child Development, 37, 887–907.

Baumrind, D., & Black, A. (1967). Socialization practices associated with dimensions of competence in preschool boys and girls. Child Development, 38, 291–327.

Bobo, L. (2001). Racial attitudes and relations at the close of the twentieth century. In N. J. Smelser, W. J. Wilson, & F. Mitchell (Eds.), America becoming: Racial trends and heir consequences (pp. 264–301). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Boykin, A. W. (1986). The triple quandary and the school- ing of Afro-American children. In U. Neisser (Ed.), The school achievement of minority children: New perspectives (pp. 57–92). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Brice-Heath, S. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecol- ogy of human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513–531.

Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. (1997). The effects of pov- erty on children. The Future of Children, 7, 55–71.

Brooks-Gunn, J., Klebanov, P. K., & Duncan, G. J. (1996). Ethnic differences in children’s intelligence test scores: Role of economic deprivation, home environment, and maternal characteristics. Child Development, 67, 396–408.

Brooks-Gunn, J., Klebanov, P. K., Smith, J., Duncan, G. J., & Lee, K. (2003). The Black-White test score gap in young children: Contributions of test and family char- acteristics. Applied Developmental Science, 7, 239–252.

Brooks-Gunn, J., & Markman, L. B. (2005). The contribu- tion of parenting to ethnic and racial gaps in school readiness. The Future of Children, 15, 139–168.

Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1970). Teachers’ communication of differential expectations for children’s classroom per- formance: Some behavioral data. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 365–374.

Brown, C. S., & Bigler, R. S. (2005). Children’s perceptions of discrimination: A developmental model. Child Devel- opment, 76, 533–553.

Brown, C. S., Bigler, R. S., & Chu, H. (2010). An experi- mental study of the correlates and consequences of perceiving oneself to be the target of gender discrimina- tion. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 107, 100–117.

Cheryan, S., & Plaut, V. C. (2010). Explaining underrepre- sentation: A theory of precluded interest. Sex Roles, 63, 475–488.

Clotfelter, C., Ladd, H., & Vigdor, J. (2004). Do school accountability systems make it more difficult for low performing schools to attract and retain high quality teachers? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23, 251–271.

Cohen, G. L., Garcia, J., Apfel, N., & Master, A. (2006). Reducing the racial achievement gap: A social-psycho- logical intervention. Science, 313, 1307–1310.

Cook, T., Herman, M. R., Phillips, M., & Settersten, R. A. (2002). Some ways in which neighborhoods, nuclear families, friendship groups, and schools jointly affect changes in adolescent development. Child Development, 73, 1283–1309.

Cook, P. J., & Ludwig, J. (1998). The burden of “acting White”: Do Black adolescents disparage academic achievement? In C. Jencks & M. Phillips (Eds.), The Black-White test score gap (pp. 375–400). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1998). On the nature of contemporary prejudice: The causes, consequences, and challenges of aversive racism. In J. L. Eberhardt & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Confronting racism: The problem and the response. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Duncan, G. J., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Klebanov, P. K. (1994). Economic deprivation and early childhood develop- ment. Child Development, 65, 296–318.

Duncan, G. J., & Magnuson, K. A. (2005). Can family socioeconomic resources account for racial and ethnic test score gaps? The Future of Children, 15, 35–54.

Dweck, C. S. (1988). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.

Educational Policy Institute. (2005). Focus on results: An academic impact analysis of the Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP). Virginia Beach, VA: Author.

Entwisle, D. R., Alexander, K. L., & Olson, L. S. (1997). Children, schools, and inequality. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Farkas, F. (2003). Racial disparities and discrimination in education: What do we know, how do we know it, and what do we need to know? Teachers College Record, 6, 1119–1146.

Ferguson, R. F. (2008). Toward excellence with equity: An emerging vision for closing the achievement gap. Cam- bridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Social Equity Theory 1133

Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J. U. (1986). Black students’ school success: Coping with the “burden of acting White.” Urban Review, 18, 176–206.

Fryer, R. G., & Levitt, S. D. (2004). Understanding the Black-White test score gap in the first two years of school. Review of Economics and Statistics, 86, 447–464.

Fryer, R. G., & Levitt, S. D. (2005). The Black-White test score gap through third grade (NBER Working Paper No. 11049). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1986). The aversive form of racism. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Pre- judice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 61–89). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Garcia-Coll, C. (1990). Developmental outcome of minor- ity children: A process-oriented look into our begin- nings. Child Development, 61, 270–289.

Gonzales, N. A., Cauce, A. M., Friedman, R. J., & Mason, C. A. (1996). Family, peer, and neighborhood influences among African-American adolescents: One-year pro- spective effects. American Journal of Community Psychol- ogy, 24, 365–387.

Good, C., Aronson, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2003). Improving adolescents’ standardized test performance: An inter- vention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat. Jour- nal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24, 645–662.

Gottfredson, D. C. (2001). Schools and delinquency. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gottfredson, D. C., Marciniak, E., Birdseye, A. T., & Gott- fredson, G. D. (1995). Increasing teacher expectations for student achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 88, 155–163.

Graham, S. (2001). Inferences about responsibility and val- ues: Implication for academic motivation. In F. Salili & C. Y. Chiu (Eds.), Student motivation: The culture and con- text of learning. Plenum series on human exceptionality (pp. 31–59). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Gregory, A., Skiba, R. J., & Noguera, P. A. (2010). The achievement gap and the discipline gap: Two sides of the same coin? Educational Researcher, 39, 59–68.

Gregory, A., & Weinstein, R. S. (2004). Connection and regulation at home and in school: Predicting growth in achievement for adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19, 405–427.

Gregory, A., & Weinstein, R. S. (2008). The discipline gap and African Americans: Defiance or cooperation in the high school classroom. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 455–475.

Guo, G., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Harris, K. M. (1996). Parents’ labor force attachment and grade retention among urban black children. Sociology of Education, 69, 217–236.

Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first-grade classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure? Child Development, 76, 949–967.

Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2009). Harming the best: How schools affect the black-white achievement gap. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 28, 366–393.

Hirschfeld, L. A. (1996). Race in the making: Cognition, cul- ture, and the child’s construction of human kinds. Cam- bridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hughes, J. N., Gleason, K. A., & Zhang, D. (2005). Rela- tionship influences on teachers’ perceptions of aca- demic competence in academically at-risk minority and majority first grade students. Journal of School Psychol- ogy, 43, 303–320.

Humphreys, K., & Rappaport, J. (1993). From the commu- nity mental health movement to the war on drugs: A study in the definition of social problems. American Psychologist, 48, 892–901.

Huston, A. C., Duncan, G. J., Granger, R., Bos, J., McLoyd, V., Mistry, R., et al. (2001). Work-based antip- overty programs for parents can enhance the school performance and social behavior of children. Child Development, 72, 318–336.

Huston, A. C., Duncan, G. J., McLoyd, V. C., Crosby, D. A., Ripke, M. N., Weisner, T. S., et al. (2005). Impacts on children of a policy to promote employment and reduce poverty for low-income parents: New Hope after 5 years. Developmental Psychology, 41, 902–918.

Inzlicht, M., & Ben-Zeev, T. (2000). A threatening intellec- tual environment: Why females are susceptible to expe- riencing problem-solving deficits in the presence of males. Psychological Science, 11, 365–371.

Jencks, C., & Phillips, M. (Eds.) (1998). The black-white test score gap. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Jensen, A. (1969). How much can we boost IQ achieve- ment? Harvard Educational Review, 39, 1–123.

Jussim, L., Eccles, J. S., & Madon, S. (1996). Social percep- tion, social stereotypes, and teacher expectations: Accu- racy and the quest for the powerful self-fulfilling prophecy. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 281–388.

Kelly, J. G. (1987). An ecological paradigm: Defining men- tal health consultation as a preventive service. Preven- tion in Human Services, 4, 1–36.

Killen, M., Lee-Kim, J., McGlothlin, H., & Stangor, C. (2002). How children and adolescents evaluate gender and racial exclusion. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 67(4), 1–119.

Killen, M., Rutland, A., & Ruck, M. (2011). Promoting equity, tolerance, and justice in childhood. SRCD Social Policy Report, 25, 3–25.

Killen, M., & Stangor, C. (2001). Children’s social rea- soning about inclusion and exclusion in gender and race peer group contexts. Child Development, 82, 174– 186.

Lee, J. (2002). Racial and ethnic achievement gap trends: Reversing the progress toward equity? Educational Researcher, 31, 3–12.

Lee, V. E., & Burkam, D. T. (2002). Inequality at the start- ing gate: Social background differences in achievement as children begin school. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

Levin, H. M. (2009). The economic payoff to investing in educational justice. Educational Researcher, 38, 5–20.

1134 McKown

Lucas, S. R., & Berends, M. (2002). Sociodemographic diversity, correlated achievement, and de facto track- ing. Sociology of Education, 75, 328–348.

Magnuson, K., & Duncan, G. J. (2006). The role of family socioeconomic resources in the Black-White test score gap among young children. Developmental Review, 26, 365–399.

Majors, R., & Billson, J. M. (1993). Cool pose: The dilemmas of Black manhood in America. New York: Touchstone Books/Simon & Schuster.

Mandara, J., & Murray, C. B. (2002). Development of an empirical typology of African American family func- tioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 318–337.

Mandara, J., Varner, F., Greene, N., & Richman, S. (2009). Intergenerational family predictors of the Black-White achievement gap. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 867–878.

McConahay, J. B., Hardee, B. B., & Batts, V. (1981). Has racism declined in America? It depends on who is ask- ing and what is asked. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 25, 563–579.

McKown, C. (2005). Applying ecological theory to advance the science and practice of school-based preju- dice reduction interventions. Educational Psychologist, 40, 177–189.

McKown, C., Gregory, A., & Weinstein, R. S. (2010). Expectations, stereotypes, and self-fulfilling prophecies in classroom and school life. In J. Meece & J. Eccles (Eds.), Handbook of research on schools, schooling, and human development. New York: Routledge.

McKown, C., & Strambler, M. J. (2008). Social influences on the ethnic achievement gap. In S. Quintana & C. McKown (Eds.), Handbook of race, racism, and the develop- ing child (pp. 366–396). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

McKown, C., & Strambler, M. J. (2009). Developmental antecedents and social and academic consequences of stereotype-consciousness in middle childhood. Child Development, 80, 1643–1659.

McKown, C., & Weinstein, R. S. (2002). Modeling the role of child ethnicity and gender in children’s differential response to teacher expectations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 159–184.

McKown, C., & Weinstein, R. S. (2003). The development and consequences of stereotype-consciousness in mid- dle childhood. Child Development, 74, 498–515.

McKown, C., & Weinstein, R. S. (2008). Teacher expecta- tions, classroom context, and the achievement gap. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 235–261.

McLanahan, S., & Percheski, C. (2008). Family structure and the reproduction of inequality. Annual Review of Sociology, 34, 257–276.

Mendoza-Denton, R., Downey, G., Purdie, V. J., Davis, A., & Pietrzak, J. (2002). Sensitivity to status-based rejection: Implications for African American students’ college experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology, 83, 896–918.

Murphy, M. C., Steele, C. M., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Signal- ing threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18, 879–885.

Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. K., Boykin, A.W., Brody, N., Ceci, S.J. (1995). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51, 77–101.

Nesdale, D., & Flesser, D. (2001). Social identify and the development of children’s group attitudes. Child Devel- opment, 72, 506–517.

Nguyen, H. D., & Ryan, A. M. (2008). Does stereotype threat affect test performance of minorities and women? A meta-analysis of experimental evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1314–1334.

Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequal- ity (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Ogbu, J. (2002). Cultural amplifiers of intelligence: IQ and minority status in cross-cultural perspective. In J. M. Fish (Ed.), Race and intelligence: Separating science from myth (pp. 241–278). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Orr, A. J. (2003). Black-White differences in achievement: The importance of wealth. Sociology of Education, 76, 281–304.

Page, L. C., Murnane, R. J., & Willett, J. B. (2008). Trends in the Black-White achievement gap: Clarifying the meaning of within and between-school achievement gaps (NBER Working Paper No. 14213). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Pager, D., & Shepherd, H. (2008). The sociology of dis- crimination: Racial discrimination in employment, housing, credit, and consumer markets. Annual Review of Sociology, 34, 181–209.

Phillips, M., Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G. J., Klebanov, P., & Crane, J. (1998). Family background, parenting prac- tices, and the Black-White test score gap. In C. Jencks & M. Phillips (Eds.), The Black-White test score gap (pp. 103–145). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Phillips, M., Crouse, J., & Ralph, J. (1998). Does the Black- White test score gap widen after children enter school? In C. Jencks & M. Phillips (Eds.), The Black-White test score gap (pp. 229–272). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Piaget, J. (1972). The psychology of intelligence. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield Adams.

Quintana, S. M. (1998). Children’s developmental under- standing of ethnicity and race. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 7, 27–45.

Quintana, S. M. (2008). Racial perspective taking ability: Developmental, theoretical, and empirical trends. In S. M. Quintana & C. McKown (Eds.), Handbook of race, rac- ism, and the developing child. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Reardon, S. F., Farrell, C. R., Matthews, S. A., O’Sulliv- and, D., Bischoff, K., & Firebaugh, G. (2009). Race and space in the 1990s: Changes in the geographic scale of racial residential segregation, 1990–2000. Social Science Research, 38, 55–70.

Reardon, S. F., & Galindo, C. (2009). The Hispanic-White achievement gap in math and reading in the elemen- tary grades. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 853–891.

Reardon, S. F., & Robinson, J. P. (2007). Patterns and trends in racial/ethnic and socioeconomic academic achieve- ment gaps. In H. F. Ladd (Ed.), Handbook of research in education finance and policy. New York: Routledge.

Social Equity Theory 1135

Rubovits, P. C., & Maehr, M. L. (1973). Pygmalion in Black and White. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology, 25, 210–218.

Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R. (2005). Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability. Psychol- ogy, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 235–294.

Rutland, A., Cameron, L., Milne, A., & McGeorge, P. (2005). Social norms and self-presentation: Children’s implicit and explicit intergroup attitudes. Child Develop- ment, 76, 451–466.

Sackett, P. R., Hardison, C. M., & Cullen, M. J. (2004). On interpreting stereotype threat as accounting for African American-White differences on cognitive tests. American Psychologist, 59, 7–13.

Saft, E. W., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Teachers’ perceptions of their relationships with students: Effects of child age, gender, and ethnicity of teachers and children. School Psychology Quarterly, 16, 125–141.

Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 227, 918–924.

Seidman, E. (1983). Unexamined premises of social prob- lem solving. In E. Seidman (Ed.), Handbook of social intervention (pp. 48–71). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (2001). Reducing the gap: Success for all and the achievement of African American stu- dents Presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Seattle, WA.

Spencer, M. B. (1999). Social and cultural influences on school adjustment: The application of an identity- focused cultural ecological perspective. Educational Psy- chologist, 34, 43–57.

Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 261–302). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629.

Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797–811.

Tharp, R. G. (1989). Psychocultural variables and con- stants: Effects on teaching and learning in school. Amer- ican Psychologist, 44, 349–359.

Thernstrom, A., & Thernstrom, S. (2002). No excuses: Closing the racial gap in learning. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (2000). How different ethnic groups react to legal authority. San Francisco: Public Pol- icy Institute of California.

Vanneman, A., Hamilton, L., Anderson, J. B., & Rahman, T. (2009). Achievement gaps: How Black and White stu- dents in public schools perform in mathematics and reading on the national assessment of educational progress (NCES No. 2009-455). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Walton, G. M., & Spencer, S. J. (2009). Latent ability: Grades and test scores systematically underestimate the intellectual ability of negatively stereotyped students. Psychological Science, 20, 1132–1139.

Weinstein, R. S. (2002). Reaching higher: The power of expec- tations in schooling. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer- sity Press.

Weinstein, R. S., & McKown, C. (1998). Expectancy effects in context: Listening to the voices of students and teach- ers. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching (Vol. 7, pp. 215–242). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Weinstein, R. S., Soulé, C. R., Collins, F., Cone, J., Mehl- horn, M., & Simontacchi, K. (1991). Expectations and high school change: Teacher-researcher collaboration to prevent school failure. American Journal of Community Psychology, 19, 333–364.

Yeung, W. J., & Conley, D. (2008). Black-White achieve- ment gap and family wealth. Child Development, 79, 303– 324.

Yeung, W. J., & Pfeiffer, K. M. (2009). The Black-White test score gap and early home environment. Social Sci- ence Research, 38, 412–437.

1136 McKown

This document is a scanned copy of a printed document. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material.