\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter

\IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}%
  {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}%
  {\RequirePackage{color}}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{ifxetex}
\ifxetex
  \usepackage{fontspec}
  \usepackage{xunicode}
  \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash}
  \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{}
  \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}}
  \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}}
  \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}}
  \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}}
  \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono}
  
\else
  \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}%
   {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
      \PrerenderUnicode{–}
    }%
   {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}}
  \usepackage[english]{babel}
  \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
  \usepackage{float}
  \usepackage[]{ucs}
  \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash }
  \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{}
  \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}}
  \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}}
  \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,}
  \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ }
  \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>}
  \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}}
  \def\textJapanese{}
  \def\textChinese{}
  \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{}
\fi
\def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small}
\DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25}
\usepackage{relsize}
\RequirePackage{array}
\def\@testpach{\@chclass
 \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else
  \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else
   \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else
    \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@
   \else \z@
   \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else
   \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}%
   \@chnum
   \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else
    \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else
     \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else
   \z@ \@chclass
   \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else
    \if \@nextchar !6 \else
     \if \@nextchar @7 \else
      \if \@nextchar (8 \else
       \if \@nextchar )9 \else
  10
  \@chnum
  \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else
   \if \@nextchar p4 \else
    \if \@nextchar b5 \else
   \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi
   \fi \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi}
\gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr}
\def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}}
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\def\abbr{}
\def\corr{}
\def\expan{}
\def\gap{}
\def\orig{}
\def\reg{}
\def\ref{}
\def\sic{}
\def\persName{}\def\name{}
\def\placeName{}
\def\orgName{}
\def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}}
\def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}}
\def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}}
\def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}}
\def\textquoted#1{‘#1’}
\def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}}
\def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}}
\def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}}
\def\titlem{\itshape}
\newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{bibl}{}{}
\newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{rubric}{}{}
\newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par }

\newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}}
\newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
\definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75}
\def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}}
\DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@}
\def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}}
\begingroup
\catcode`\_=\active
\gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}}
\endgroup
\mathcode`\_=\string"8000
\catcode`\_=12\relax

\usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry}
\usepackage{framed}

\definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{fancyvrb}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{marginnote}

\renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1}


\renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize}

\def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif}

  \pagestyle{fancy}

\usepackage[pdftitle={College-Readiness Differences by Economic Status of Texas High School Students with a Learning Disability: A Statewide Multiyear Investigation},
 pdfauthor={}]{hyperref}
\hyperbaseurl{}

	 \paperwidth210mm
	 \paperheight297mm
              
\def\@pnumwidth{1.55em}
\def\@tocrmarg {2.55em}
\def\@dotsep{4.5}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
\clubpenalty=8000
\emergencystretch 3em
\hbadness=4000
\hyphenpenalty=400
\pretolerance=750
\tolerance=2000
\vbadness=4000
\widowpenalty=10000

\renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large}}
\renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}%
     {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\large}}
\renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}%
     {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize}}
\renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}%
     {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}%
     {-1em}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}}


\def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt}
 \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup
 \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth 
 \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth 
 \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par
 \endgroup}
\def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}}
\def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}}
\def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}}
\def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}}
\@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{}
\@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{}
\newif\if@mainmatter 
\@mainmattertrue
\def\chaptername{Chapter}
\def\frontmatter{%
  \pagenumbering{roman}
  \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\roman{section}}
  \def\@chapapp{}%
}
\def\mainmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter}
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \pagenumbering{arabic}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6}
  \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}%
  \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}}
}
\def\backmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2}
  \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}%
  \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}}
  \appendix
}
\newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{%
   \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
       {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}%
        \leftmargin\labelwidth
        \advance\leftmargin\labelsep
        \@openbib@code
        \usecounter{enumiv}%
        \let\p@enumiv\@empty
        \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}%
	}%
  \sloppy
  \clubpenalty4000
  \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty
  \widowpenalty4000%
  \sfcode`\.\@m}%
  {\def\@noitemerr
    {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}%
    \endlist}

\def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}}
\parskip0pt
\parindent1em
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\newenvironment{reflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{sansreflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{specHead}[2]%
 {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}%
  \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}%

  \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}%
  \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}%
  }{}
      \def\TheFullDate{2017-01-15 (revised: 15 January 2017)}
\def\TheID{\makeatother }
\def\TheDate{2017-01-15}
\title{College-Readiness Differences by Economic Status of Texas High School Students with a Learning Disability: A Statewide Multiyear Investigation}
\author{}\makeatletter 
\makeatletter
\newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{%
  \clearpage
    \if@twoside
    \ifodd\c@page
      \hbox{}\newpage
      \if@twocolumn
        \hbox{}\newpage
      \fi
    \fi
  \fi
}
\makeatother
\makeatletter
\thispagestyle{empty}
\markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author}
\renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@
\belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip
\abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@
\belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@
\def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini
               \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@
               \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@
               \itemsep 1pt}
}
\makeatother
\fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm}
\fancyhf{} 
\setlength{\headheight}{14pt}
\fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} 
\fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} 
\fancyfoot[RO]{}
\fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID}
\fancyfoot[LE]{}
\fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID}
\hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true}
\fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}}

\date{}
\usepackage{authblk}

\providecommand{\keywords}[1]
{
\footnotesize
  \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1
}

\usepackage{graphicx,xcolor}
\definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81}
\definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9}
\definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70}
\definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} 

\renewenvironment{abstract}{%
   \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
   \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space}
}{%   
   \vskip8pt
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
}

\usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos}

\makeatother 
      \usepackage{lineno}
      \linenumbers
      
\begin{document}

             \author[1]{John R.  Slate}

             \author[2]{Catherine  Holden}

             \author[3]{George W.  Moore}

             \affil[1]{  Sam Houston State University}

\renewcommand\Authands{ and }

\date{\small \em Received: 9 December 2016 Accepted: 2 January 2017 Published: 15 January 2017}

\maketitle


\begin{abstract}
        


The extent to which differences were present in college-readiness rates in reading, mathematics, and both subjects by economic status for students who were Learning Disabled in Texas public high schools for 2008-2009 through 2010-2011 school years were analyzed in this study.  Archival data were obtained from the Texas Education Agency Public Education Information Management System on all high school students who were diagnosed as being Learning Disabled.  Statistically significant differences in reading, mathematics, and both subjects college-readiness were present for all three school years.  Extremely low college-readiness rates were present in reading, mathematics, and both subjects for students who were Learning Disabled in the 2008-2009 through the 2010-2011 school years. 

\end{abstract}


\keywords{special education, learning disabled, collegereadiness, economic status.}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark}
\end{textblock*}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}}
\end{textblock*}


\let\tabcellsep& 	 	 		 
\section[{Introduction}]{Introduction}\par
family's socioeconomic status has been a strong predictor of academic achievement (Cabrera \& La Nasa, 2001; \hyperref[b18]{Horn \& Kojaku, 2001;}\hyperref[b25]{Reardon, 2011)} and is now a better predictor than race \hyperref[b27]{(Reardon, 2013)}. The achievement gap for students who live in poverty versus their counterparts is now greater than 50\% larger than the gap between Black and White students \hyperref[b25]{(Reardon, 2011)}. With respect to the group of students relevant to this empirical investigation, children with Learning Disabilities are more likely to live in poverty  {\ref (Coppin et}  Even though the Americans with Disabilities Act assures equal education and employment to those people with and without disabilities, Stoddard (2014) reported a 33.9\% employment rate for people living with a disability compared to 74.2\% of people living without a disability. Few people with disabilities are employed, with many of them employed in jobs that pay under the poverty level \hyperref[b19]{(Hughes \& Avoke, 2010)}. DeNavas-Walt and Proctor (2015) reported 46.7 million people living in poverty and 28.5\% of those people living with a disability between the ages of 18 and 64 in 2014 reported poverty income levels. Specific to anyone over the age of five and living with a Learning Disability, the rate of living in poverty was 2.6\% compared to those people not living with a Learning Disability at 1.5\% \hyperref[b10]{(Cortiella \& Horowitz, 2014)}.\par
The achievement gap for students who lived in poverty was analyzed by \hyperref[b23]{Lee and Slate (2014)} in a quantitative study about the advanced achievement of students who were economically disadvantaged. Grade 11 students who took the 2012 Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) were examined on their Met Standard, Commended Performance, and collegereadiness performance. Nearly one half of the sample size was students who were economically disadvantaged. \hyperref[b23]{Lee and Slate (2014)} established that students who were economically disadvantaged had 20\% lower Commended Performance and collegereadiness rates on the TAKS Reading and Mathematics assessment than those students who were not economically disadvantaged. When analyzing the Met Standard rates, Lee and Slate (2014) documented similar rates of success for students who were in poverty and students who were not in poverty.\par
In this study, the college-readiness of students who had a Learning Disability will be investigated. The demands of the 21st century economy require a wider spread of skills than ever before \hyperref[b2]{(Brand, Valent, \& Danielson, 2013}). To compete with the global market, a larger percent of youth to graduate with postsecondary degrees, including students with disabilities is required \hyperref[b2]{(Brand et al., 2013)}. In conjunction with this demand, emphasized in the amendment to Public Law 94-142 was an emphasis on college-readiness for students with disabilities, it is essential to learn what is meant by college-readiness. \hyperref[b7]{Conley (2007}\hyperref[b8]{Conley ( , 2008}) defined collegereadiness as students successfully transitioning from high school to the college environment equipped to manage the demands of college without remediation. Barnes, Slate, and Rojas-LeBouef (2010) define collegereadiness as academic preparedness. However, in the state of Texas, college-readiness indicators are specific to the following standardized assessments: (a) Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills, (b) Scholastic Aptitude Test, and (c) American College Test, as noted in \hyperref[b0]{Barnes and Slate (2011)}.\par
The group of students relevant to this investigation are students with Learning Disabilities. Students who were diagnosed with a Learning Disability are the largest group who receive special education services out of all of the other categories of disability, about 42\% in 2011 for the United States and 43.2\% in Texas \hyperref[b10]{(Cortiella \& Horowitz, 2014)}. Of the students with a Learning Disability, one third had been retained at least one grade level and one out of every two students with a Learning Disability had been given a disciplinary consequence such as suspension or expulsion in 2011 \hyperref[b10]{(Cortiella \& Horowitz, 2014)}.\par
Unfortunately, students who have Learning Disabilities are attending 4-year institutions at one half the rate of students without Learning Disabilities. Of those students with Learning Disabilities who are attending 4-year universities, only 17\% are receiving some type of accommodation or support for their disability.\par
Only 41\% of students with Learning Disabilities complete college compared to students without Learning Disabilities \hyperref[b10]{(Cortiella \& Horowitz, 2014)}. When over a lifetime, a 4-year college graduate will earn 84\% more than a high school graduate (Carnevale, Rose, \& Cheah, 2011), it is imperative that students with Learning Disabilities graduate from college.\par
Holden and Slate (2016) provided empirical evidence that low percentages of students receiving special education services were college ready. Students who were enrolled in special education in large-size high schools had low percentages who were college-ready. The percent of students receiving special education services who Met Standard in Reading was 17.60\%, in Mathematics was 24.19\%, and in both subjects was only 9.78\%. Chandler, Slate, Moore, and Barnes (2014) also established the presence of minimal improvements in college-readiness rates for students who qualified for special education services. For the all students category in the study, \hyperref[b5]{Chandler et al. (2014)} documented about a 20\% increase in reading collegereadiness rates between the 2008-2009 and the 2010-2011 school years, whereas students who received special education services demonstrated a mere 2\% increase during the same time. An increase of slightly over 10\% for all students' mathematics collegereadiness rates was determined, whereas students who were enrolled in special education had no change in their mathematics college readiness-rates \hyperref[b5]{(Chandler et al., 2014)}. When analyzing college-readiness rates for both subjects, \hyperref[b5]{Chandler et al. (2014)}   
\section[{a) Purpose of the Study}]{a) Purpose of the Study}\par
The first purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which differences were present in reading college-readiness as a function of economic status for students with a Learning Disability. A second purpose of this investigation was to ascertain the degree to which differences were present in mathematics collegereadiness as a function of economic status for students with a Learning Disability. Thirdly, the purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which differences were present in both subjects' college-readiness as a function of economic status for students with a Learning Disability. Finally, the fourth purpose of this empirical statewide investigation was to ascertain the degree to which trends were present in the performance of students with a Learning Disability across the three years of school data that were analyzed here in. 
\section[{b) Significance of the Study}]{b) Significance of the Study}\par
Research exists on college-readiness rates, on students with Learning Disabilities, and on students in poverty; however, research is limited on all three variables concurrently.\par
This research investigation begins to add to the body of research on these specific groups of students. With 59.2\% of students in poverty and 432,763 students enrolled in special education in Texas in the 2010-2011 school year (Texas Education Agency, 2015b), results from this investigation may have practical implications for school districts to improve the college-readiness rates of students who are enrolled in special education and who are in poverty. With the improvement of college-readiness rates for students who are enrolled in special education and are economically disadvantaged, the future economic status of these students has the potential for improvement. 
\section[{c) Research Questions}]{c) Research Questions}\par
The following research questions were addressed in this empirical investigation: (a) What is the difference in reading college-readiness as a function of economic status for students with a Learning Disability?, (b) What is the difference in mathematics collegereadiness as a function of economic status for students with a Learning Disability?, (c) What is the difference in both subjects college-readiness as a function of economic status for students with a Learning Disability?; and (d) What is the trend in reading, mathematics, and both subjects college-readiness rates over time for students with a Learning Disability? The first three research questions were repeated for the 2008-2009, 2009-2010, and 2010-2011 school years whereas the trend question was repeated for each of the three college-readiness rates across the three school years. Therefore, a total of 12 research questions was present. 
\section[{III.}]{III.} 
\section[{Method a) Research Design}]{Method a) Research Design}\par
This non experimental quantitative study was a causal comparative design because the reading, mathematics, and both subjects college readiness performance has already occurred \hyperref[b11]{(Creswell, 2014)}. Archival data for the 2008-2009, 2009-2010, and 2010-2011 school years were used to examine the relationship of college readiness by economic status of students who had a Learning Disability.\par
The independent variable in this investigation was economic status (i.e., not economically disadvantaged or economically disadvantaged) and the dependent variables were college-readiness rates in reading, in mathematics, and in both subjects. The sample of students whose data were analyzed herein was students who were determined to have a Learning Disability. 
\section[{b) Participants and Instrumentation}]{b) Participants and Instrumentation}\par
Archival data were requested from the Texas Education Agency Public Education Information Management System for the 2008-2009, 2009-2010, and 2010-2011 school years for high school students who had a Learning Disability. These data included: (a) grade span configuration of each high school campus, (b) student special education enrollment status, (c) reading college-readiness rates, (d) mathematics college-readiness rates, (e) both subjects collegereadiness rates, and (f) economic status. Data was only used for students who were enrolled in special education in traditional public high schools. Therefore, charter schools, alternative education campuses, and high schools that did not have a grade span configuration of Grades 9-12 were excluded from the study.\par
Examined in this study were three collegereadiness variables by student economic status for students who had a Learning Disability. Participants were evaluated on their performance on the Higher Education Readiness Component (HERC) standard for college-readiness. The HERC was mandated under the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills by Senate Bill 103. Under this legislation, a performance standard to identify college-readiness was required. The HERC standard is on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills scale score system, was established by Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, and the Texas Education Agency (  {\ref 2006}) is responsible for implementing and facilitating the assessment with fidelity.\par
College-readiness is defined by the Texas Education Agency (2014) as the following: To be considered college-ready as defined by this indicator, a graduate must have met or exceeded the college-ready criteria on the TAKS exit-level test, or the SAT test, or the ACT test. Readers are directed to Table \hyperref[tab_4]{1} in \hyperref[b0]{Barnes and Slate (2011)} for the breakdown of the specific scores to be deemed college-ready in Texas.\par
Economically disadvantaged is defined as students who are eligible for free or reduced lunch by the Texas Education Agency (2014). The United States Department of Agriculture (2015, July) outlined the eligibility requirements for acquiring free or reduced lunch.\par
The family-size income levels prescribed annually by the Secretary of Agriculture for determining eligibility for free and reduced price meals and free milk. The free guidelines are at or below 130 percent of the federal poverty guidelines.\par
The reduced price guidelines are between 130 and at or below 185 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines. (p. 10)\par
The students whose data were analyzed herein were students determined to have a Learning Disability. Learning Disabled is generally defined as various processing disorders which affects a person's language acquisition, retention, organization, planning, reasoning, or understanding of skills (Learning Disabilities Association of America, 2016; Merriam-Webster, 2016).\par
The Texas Education Agency (2015a) defines Learning Disabled students as:\par
(B) A student with a Learning Disability is one who: (i) has been determined through a variety of as sessment tools and strategies to meet the criteria for a specific Learning Disability as stated in 34 CFR, §300.8(c) \hyperref[b9]{(10)}  
\section[{Results}]{Results}\par
To determine whether differences were present in reading, mathematics, and both subjects collegereadiness rates (i.e., met standard or did not meet standard) by economic status (i.e., Not Economically Disadvantaged or Economically Disadvantaged) for Texas high school students who were Learning Disabled, Pearson chi-square statistics were calculated. Frequency data were present for the college-readiness variables and economic status; therefore, this procedure is viewed as the appropriate statistical procedure \hyperref[b16]{(Field, 2009}; Slate \& Rojas-LeBouef, 2011).\par
When both variables are nominal, chi-squares are the statistical procedure of choice. The available sample size per cell was more than five, therefore, the assumptions were met for using the Pearson chi-square procedure.\par
Results will now be discussed in order of the research questions by school year. 
\section[{a) Research Question One}]{a) Research Question One}\par
In the first research question the focus was on whether differences were present in reading collegereadiness by economic status for students who were Learning Disabled for the 2008-2009 through the 2010-2011 school years. The sample size for the 2008-2009 school year was 413 students who had a Learning Disability and who were not economically disadvantaged and 506 students who had a Learning Disability and who were economically disadvantaged (N = 919). With respect to the research question, the Pearson chi-square procedure revealed a statistically significant difference in reading college-readiness rates by economic status of students who had a Learning Disability, ? 2 (1) = 53.52, p< .001, Cramer's V of .24, small effect size \hyperref[b6]{(Cohen, 1988)}. Of the students who had a Learning Disability and who were not economically disadvantaged, 15\% met the HERC Reading standard compared to 2\% of students who had a Learning Disability and who were economically disadvantaged. Table \hyperref[tab_4]{1}  With respect to the 2009-2010 school year, a statistically significant difference was not yielded in the reading college-readiness rates by economic status of students with a Learning Disability. No student who was Learning Disabled in this school year, regardless of economic status, met the HERC Reading standard. Frequencies and percentages for reading collegereadiness rates by economic status are located in Table \hyperref[tab_4]{1}.\par
Concerning the 2010-2011 school year, a statistically significant difference in reading collegereadiness rates was not present, ? 2 (1) = 0.69, p = .41.\par
Readers should note that less than 10\% of students who were Learning Disabled met the HERC Reading standard. Only 8.3\% of students with a Learning Disability and who were not economically disadvantaged met the HERC Reading standard compared to 6.7\% of students with a Learning Disability who were economically disadvantaged met this reading college-readiness standard. 
\section[{b) Research Question Two}]{b) Research Question Two}\par
The focus for the second research question was on whether differences were present in mathematics college-readiness by economic status for students who were Learning Disabled for the  {\ref [2008]} {\ref [2009]}  Disability and who were economically disadvantaged (N = 735). With respect to the research question, the Pearson chi-square procedure revealed a statistically significant difference in mathematics college-readiness rates by economic status of students who had a Learning Disability, ? 2 (1) = 18.48, p< .001, Cramer's V of .16, small effect size \hyperref[b6]{(Cohen, 1988)}. Almost 10\% of students who had a Learning Disability and who were not economically disadvantaged met the HERC Mathematics standard compared to slightly over 2\% of students who had a Learning Disability and who were economically disadvantaged. The 2009-2010 school year did not yield a statistically significant difference in the mathematics college-readiness rates by economic status of students with a Learning Disability, ? 2 (1) = 1.40, p = .24. Only one student who was Learning Disabled in this school year met the HERC Mathematics standard. Readers are directed to Table2 for frequencies and percentages for mathematics college-readiness rates by economic status.\par
Regarding the 2010-2011 school year, a statistically significant difference in mathematics college-readiness rates was not present, ? 2 (1) = 0.11, p =. 74. Less than 7\% of students with a Learning Disability and who were not economically disadvantaged met the HERC Mathematics standard compared a similar percentage of students with a Learning Disability who were economically disadvantaged met the mathematics college-readiness standard. 
\section[{c) Research Question Three}]{c) Research Question Three}\par
The third research question was on whether differences were present in both subjects college-readiness by economic status for students who were Learning Disabled for the 2008-2009 through the 2010-2011 school years. For the 2008-2009 school year, the sample size was 192 students who had a Learning Disability and who were not economically disadvantaged and 236 students who had a Learning Disability and who were economically disadvantaged (N = 428). Pearson chi-square procedure revealed a statistically significant difference in both subjects college-readiness rates by economic status of students who had a Learning Disability, ? 2 (1) = 10.02, p = .002, Cramer's V of .15, small effect size (Cohen, 1988).\par
Slightly over 4\% of students who had a Learning Disability and who were not economically disadvantaged met the both subjects college-readiness standard compared to no students who had a Learning Disability and who were economically disadvantaged met the both subjects college-readiness standard. Readers are directed to Table \hyperref[tab_6]{3} for frequencies and percentages of college-readiness rates in both subjects by economic status of students who were Learning Disabled. (n = 0) 0\% (n = 0) 0\% Economically Disadvantaged ( n =0) 0\% ( n = 0) 0\% ( n = 7) 1.5\%\par
No student with a Learning Disability met the both subjects college-readiness standard in the 2009-2010 school year. Table \hyperref[tab_6]{3} contains the frequencies and percentages for both subjects college-readiness rates by economic status for students with a Learning Disability. Regarding the 2010-2011 school year, a statistically significant difference in both subjects college-readiness rates was not yielded, ? 2 (1) = 1.23, p =. 27. Less than 2\% of students with a Learning Disability and who were economically disadvantaged  V. 
\section[{Discussion}]{Discussion}\par
Differences in college-readiness rates in reading, mathematics, and both subjects were analyzed by economic status for students who were Learning Disabled in this research study. Individual student level data were obtained from the Texas Education Agency Public Education Information Management System data for the 2008-2009 through the 2010-2011 school years. For the 2008-2009 and 2010-2011 school years, students who were not economically disadvantaged had a higher met standard college-readiness rate than students who were economically disadvantaged. No students who were Learning Disabled in the 2009-2010 school year were college-ready in reading. Readers should note the very low reading college-readiness rates for students who were Learning Disabled. Reading college-readiness rates by economic status for students who were Learning Disabled are presented in Figure 1. Mathematics college-readiness rates for students who had a Learning Disability fluctuated for the three years analyzed in this investigation. Of note, in the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years, students who were not economically disadvantaged had better performance on the mathematics college-readiness standard than students who were economically disadvantaged. In the 2010-2011 school year, students who were economically disadvantaged had a slightly higher mathematics college-readiness rate than students who were not economically disadvantaged. Depicted in Figure 2 are the mathematics collegereadiness rates by economic status for students who were Learning Disabled. Students with a Learning Disability had extremely low to nonexistent college-readiness percentages in both subjects. College-readiness in both subjects fluctuated within the three years of study.\par
Present in Figure 3 are both subjects college-readiness rates by economic status for students who were Learning Disabled. With the extremely low college-readiness rates for students who were Learning Disabled, policymakers and educational leaders are strongly encouraged to consider the results of this study. Home visits have been effective in promoting academic achievement in students by deepening the understanding of student's life experiences and building trust between educators, parents, and students \hyperref[b30]{(Stetson, Stetson, Sinclair, \& Nix, 2012)}. Home visits are one procedure that can be implemented in high poverty schools to begin to close the gap for students who live in poverty and have a Learning Disability.\par
Upper and middle class families have educational experiences with their children through vacations, summer camps, and reading at home \hyperref[b21]{(Lareau, 2002)}. These activities tend to be less available to students who live in poverty. Educational leaders and teachers can create environments in the school setting to allow all students to gain these educational experiences. Students who live in poverty would learn 21st century skills through these experiences such as communication, reading, and world knowledge. Another recommendation for a future research study is to investigate whether differences are present in collegereadiness rates of students who are Learning Disabled by the age in which they were diagnosed. That is, do students who are determined to be Learning Disabled in the early elementary grades have different collegereadiness skills than do students who are diagnosed in middle or high school grades? Another recommendation for future research is to analyze college-readiness rates by specific type of student learning disability. In this journal-ready dissertation, college-readiness rates were analyzed for students with a diagnosis of Learning Disability and not for specific types of learning disabilities. As such, given the different types of learning disabilities, a more nuanced approach is encouraged than was conducted in this journal-ready dissertation. 
\section[{VI.}]{VI.} 
\section[{Conclusion}]{Conclusion}\par
In this investigation, the extent to which differences were present in college-readiness rates by economic status of Texas high school students who had a Learning Disability was addressed. Inferential statistical analyses were conducted to determine the degree to which college-readiness rates in reading, mathematics, and in both subjects differed by student economic status for students who had a Learning Disability. College-readiness rates in reading, mathematics, and in both subjects for students who were Learning Disabled were extremely low. Students who were Learning Disabled and who were not economically disadvantaged had higher collegereadiness rates in most cases. In the 2010-2011 school year, students who were economically disadvantaged had slightly higher college-readiness rates than students who were not economically disadvantaged in mathematics and both subjects.      \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{}
\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_0}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.85\textwidth}}
through the\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_4}Table 1 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.2846698113207547\textwidth}P{0.1884433962264151\textwidth}P{0.1804245283018868\textwidth}P{0.1964622641509434\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Met Standard\tabcellsep Met Standard\tabcellsep Met Standard\\
Economic Status\tabcellsep 2008-2009\tabcellsep 2009-2010\tabcellsep 2010-2011\\
Not Economically Disadvantaged\tabcellsep (n = 29) 9.2\%\tabcellsep (n = 1) 0.1\%\tabcellsep (n = 12) 6.8\%\\
Economically Disadvantaged\tabcellsep (n =9) 2.1\%\tabcellsep (n = 0) 0\%\tabcellsep (n = 48) 7.5\%\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_5}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{3} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.31611570247933884\textwidth}P{0.23884297520661157\textwidth}P{0.1475206611570248\textwidth}P{0.1475206611570248\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Met Standard\tabcellsep Met Standard\tabcellsep Met Standard\\
Economic Status\tabcellsep 2008-2009\tabcellsep 2009-2010\tabcellsep 2010-2011\\
Not Economically Disadvantaged\tabcellsep (n = 8) 4.2\%\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_6}Table 3 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{2} \par 
\begin{longtable}{}
\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_7}Table 2 :}\end{figure}
 		 		\backmatter  			  				\begin{bibitemlist}{1}
\bibitem[ Employment and Disability Institute ()]{b14}\label{b14} 	 		\textit{},  	 	 		\textit{Employment and Disability Institute}  		2011.  	 
\bibitem[Adaptations for special populations: Subchapter AA. Commissioner's rules concerning special 34 ()]{b33}\label{b33} 	 		\textit{Adaptations for special populations: Subchapter AA. Commissioner's rules concerning special 34},  		2015a. p. 35.  	 	 (Chapter 89) 
\bibitem[Slate et al. ()]{b28}\label{b28} 	 		\textit{Calculating basic statistical procedures in SPSS: A self-help and practical guide to preparing theses, dissertations, and manuscripts},  		 			J R Slate 		,  		 			Rojas-Le 		,  		 			A Bouef 		.  		2011. Ypsilanti, MI: NCPEA Press.  	 
\bibitem[Barnes et al. ()]{b1}\label{b1} 	 		‘College-readiness and academic preparedness: The same concepts?’.  		 			W Barnes 		,  		 			J R Slate 		,  		 			A Rojas-Lebouef 		.  		 \url{http://cie.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/cieatasu/article/view/678/56}  	 	 		\textit{Current Issues in Education}  		2010. 13  (4) .  	 
\bibitem[Barnes and Slate ()]{b0}\label{b0} 	 		‘College-readiness rates in Texas: A statewide, multiyear study of ethnic differences’.  		 			W Barnes 		,  		 			J R Slate 		.  		 doi:10:1177/0013124511423775.  	 	 		\textit{Education and Urban Society}  		2011. 46  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Chandler et al. ()]{b5}\label{b5} 	 		‘College-readiness rates of students with special learning needs in Texas public schools’.  		 			J R Chandler 		,  		 			J R Slate 		,  		 			G W Moore 		,  		 			W Barnes 		.  		 \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.15640/jeds}{10.15640/jeds}.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Education and Human Development}  		2014. 3  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Creswell ()]{b11}\label{b11} 	 		 			J W Creswell 		.  		\textit{Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches},  				 (Thousand Oaks, CA)  		2014. Sage.  	 	 (4th ed.) 
\bibitem[Merriam-Webster ()]{b24}\label{b24} 	 		\textit{Definition of learning disability},  		 			Merriam-Webster 		.  		 \url{http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/learningdisability}  		2015.  	 
\bibitem[Lee and Slate ()]{b23}\label{b23} 	 		‘Differences in advanced achievement outcomes for Texas students as a function of economic disadvantage’.  		 			K M Lee 		,  		 			J R Slate 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Education Research}  		2014. 8  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Holden and Slate ()]{b17}\label{b17} 	 		‘Differences in college-readiness rates as a function of school size for students who were enrolled in special education’.  		 			C Holden 		,  		 			J R Slate 		.  		 \url{http://www.ikpress.org/issue/681}  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Basic and Applied Research International}  		2016. 14  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Disability status report: United States]{b15}\label{b15} 	 		 \url{fromhttp://www.disabilitystatistics.org/reports/2011/English/HTML/report2011.cfm?html\textunderscore year=2011\#poverty}  		\textit{Disability status report: United States},  				 	 
\bibitem[Field ()]{b16}\label{b16} 	 		 			A Field 		.  		\textit{Discovering statistics using SPSS},  				 (Thousand Oaks, CA)  		2009. Sage.  	 	 (3rd ed.) 
\bibitem[Glossary for the Texas Academic Performance Report ()]{b32}\label{b32} 	 		\textit{Glossary for the Texas Academic Performance Report},  		 \url{http://ritter.tea.state.tx.Usperfreport/tapr/2014/glossary.pdf}  		2014.  	 
\bibitem[Horn and Kojaku ()]{b18}\label{b18} 	 		\textit{High school academic curriculum and the persistence path through college},  		 			L Horn 		,  		 			L W Kojaku 		.  		 \url{http://nces.ed.Gov/pubs2001/2001163.pdf}  		2001.  	 
\bibitem[Stetson et al. ()]{b30}\label{b30} 	 		\textit{Home visits: Teacher reflections about relationships, student behavior, and achievement. Issues in Teacher Education},  		 			R Stetson 		,  		 			E Stetson 		,  		 			B Sinclair 		,  		 			B Nix 		.  		 \url{http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ986814.pdf}  		2012. 21 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Denavas-Walt and Proctor ()]{b12}\label{b12} 	 		\textit{Income and poverty in the United States: 2014. United States Census Bureau},  		 			D Denavas-Walt 		,  		 			B D Proctor 		.  		 \url{https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p60-252.pdf}  		2015.  	 
\bibitem[Lareau ()]{b21}\label{b21} 	 		‘Invisible inequality: Social class and childrearing in Black families and White families’.  		 			A Lareau 		.  	 	 		\textit{American Sociological Review}  		2002. 67 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Learning Disabilities Association of America ()]{b22}\label{b22} 	 		\textit{Learning Disabilities Association of America},  		 \url{http://ldaamerica.org/types-of-learning-disabilities/}  		2016.  	 	 (Types of learning disabilities) 
\bibitem[Coppin et al. ()]{b9}\label{b9} 	 		‘Low socioeconomic status and disability in old age: Evidence from the In Chianti study for the mediating role of physiological impairments’.  		 			A K Coppin 		,  		 			L Ferrucci 		,  		 			F Lauretani 		,  		 			C Phillips 		,  		 			M Chang 		,  		 			S Bandinelli 		,  		 			J M Guralnik 		.  	 	 		\textit{The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences}  		2006. 61 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Reardon (2013)]{b27}\label{b27} 	 		\textit{No rich child left behind. The New York Times},  		 			S F Reardon 		.  		 \url{http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/27/no-rich-child-left-behind/?smid=fb-share\&\textunderscore r=0}  		2013. April 27.  	 
\bibitem[Brand et al. (ed.) ()]{b2}\label{b2} 	 		\textit{On the path to college: Three critical tasks facing America's disadvantaged},  		 			B Brand 		,  		 			A Valent 		,  		 			L Danielson 		.  		 \url{http://www.ccrscenter.org/sites/default/files/Improving\%20College\%20and\%20Career\%20Readiness\%20for\%20Students\%20with\%20Disabilities.pdfCabrera}  		A. F., \& La Nasa, S. M. (ed.)  		2013. 2001. 42 p. .  	 	 (Improving college and career readiness for students with disabilities. Research in Higher education) 
\bibitem[Emerson et al. ()]{b13}\label{b13} 	 		‘Poverty transitions among families supporting a child with intellectual disability’.  		 			E Emerson 		,  		 			S Shahtahmasebi 		,  		 			G Lancaster 		,  		 			D Berridge 		.  		 doi: 10. 31 09 /13 66 82 50. 2010.518562.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability}  		2010. 35  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Conley ()]{b7}\label{b7} 	 		\textit{Redefining college readiness},  		 			D T Conley 		.  		 \url{http://evergreen.edu/washingtoncenter/docs/conleycollegereadiness.pdf}  		2007. Eugene, OR. 3.  	 
\bibitem[Conley ()]{b8}\label{b8} 	 		\textit{Rethinking college readiness. New Directions for Higher Education},  		 			D T Conley 		.  		 \url{http://www.csub.edu/eap-riap/day1/Rethinking\%20College\%20Readiness.pdf}  		2008. 144 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Cohen ()]{b6}\label{b6} 	 		\textit{Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences},  		 			J Cohen 		.  		1988. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.  	 	 (2nd ed.) 
\bibitem[Stoddard ()]{b31}\label{b31} 	 		‘TAKS Higher Education Readiness Component (HERC) contrasting groups study’.  		 			S Stoddard 		.  		 \url{http://tea.texas.gov/student.assessment/techdigest/}  	 	 		\textit{Texas Education Agency}  		2014. 2006. Pearson Educational Measurement Psychometric Services.  		 			University of New Hampshire 		 	 	 (2014 Disability statistics annual report) 
\bibitem[Texas public school statistics. Retrieved from tea.texas.gov/communications/pocket-edition/ United States Department of Agriculture (2015)]{b20}\label{b20} 	 		\textit{Texas public school statistics. Retrieved from tea.texas.gov/communications/pocket-edition/ United States Department of Agriculture},  		 \url{http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/cn/SP40\textunderscore CACFP18\textunderscore SFSP20-2015a.pdf}  		2015b. 2015. July. p. .  	 	 (Eligibility manual for school meals: Determining and verifying eligibility) 
\bibitem[Carnevale et al. ()]{b3}\label{b3} 	 		\textit{The college payoff: Education, occupations, and lifetime earnings},  		 			A P Carnevale 		,  		 			S J Rose 		,  		 			B Cheah 		.  		 \url{https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2011/collegepayoff.pdf}  		2011. Washington, DC.  	 
\bibitem[Hughes and Avoke ()]{b19}\label{b19} 	 		\textit{The elephant in the room: Poverty, disability, and employment. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities},  		 			C Hughes 		,  		 			S K Avoke 		.  		2010. 35 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Spies et al. ()]{b29}\label{b29} 	 		‘The faces of hunger: The educational impact of hunger on students with disabilities’.  		 			T G Spies 		,  		 			J J Morgan 		,  		 			M Matsuura 		.  		 doi:10.1177/ 1053451214532349.  	 	 		\textit{Intervention in School and Clinic}  		2014. 50  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Cortiella and Horowitz ()]{b10}\label{b10} 	 		\textit{The state of learning disabilities. National Center for Learning Disabilities},  		 			C Cortiella 		,  		 			S H Horowitz 		.  		 \url{https://www.ncld.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/2014-State-of-LD.pdf}  		2014.  	 
\bibitem[Reardon ()]{b25}\label{b25} 	 		\textit{The widening academic achievement gap between the rich and the poor: New evidence and possible explanations},  		 			S F Reardon 		.  		2011.  	 	 (R) 
\bibitem[What would it take for Texas to be the #1 state for kids-instead of #43 (2015)]{b4}\label{b4} 	 		\textit{What would it take for Texas to be the \#1 state for kids-instead of \#43},  		 \url{http://forabettertexas.org/images/KC\textunderscore 2015\textunderscore SOTCreport\textunderscore ExecSummary.pdf}  		2015. March.  		 			Center for Public Policy Priorities 		 	 
\bibitem[Murnane Duncan (ed.)]{b26}\label{b26} 	 		\textit{Whither opportunity? Rising inequality and the uncertain life chances of low-income children},  				 			\& G Murnane,  			Duncan 		 (ed.)  		 (New York, NY)  		Russell Sage Foundation Press. p. .  	 
\end{bibitemlist}
 			 		 	 
\end{document}
