High school graduation requirements: Effects on dropping out and student achievement

Teachers College Record

Volumn 98, Issue 4, 1997, Pages 1-607

  Hoffer, Thomas B ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0031161591     PISSN: 01614681     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Blank, R. K., & Gruebel, D. (1993). State indicators of science and mathematics education, 1993. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
2. Bryk, A. S., Lee, V. E., & Holland, P. B. (1993). Catholic schools and the common good. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
3. Clune, W. H., & White, P. A. (1992). Education reform in the trenches: Increased academic course taking in high schools with lower achieving students in states with higher graduation requirements. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14, 2-20.
4. Cusick, P. (1983). The egalitarian ideal and the american high school. New York: Longman.
5. Elmore, R. F., Abelmann, C. H., & Fuhrman, S. H. (1996).The new accountability in state education reform: From process to performance. In H. C. Ladd (Ed..) Holding schools accountable (pp. 65-98). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
6. Gamoran, A. (1987). The stratification of high school learning opportunities. Sociology of Education, 60, 135-155.
7. Hoffer, T. B., Rasinski, K. A., & Moore, W. (1995). Social background differences in high school mathematics and science course taking and achievement. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. (NCES Report 95-206)
8. Ingels, S. J., Dowd, K. L., Baldridge, J. D., Stipe, J. L., Bartot, V. H., & Frankel, M. R. (1994). National education longitudinal study of 1988 second follow-up: Student component data file user's manual. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. (NCES Report 94-374)
9. McDill, E. L., Natriello, G., and Pallas, A. M. (1986). A population at risk: Potential consequences of tougher school standards for student dropouts. American Journal of Education, 94, 135-181.
10. Mullis, I. V. S., Dossey, J. A., Campbell, J. R., Gentile, C. A., O'Sullivan, C., & Latham, A. S. (1994). NAEP 1992 trends in academic progress. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
11. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
12. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
13. National Science Board. (1996). Science and engineering indicators - 1996. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
14. Porter, A. (1995). Standard setting and the reform of high school mathematics and science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, April 1995, San Francisco, CA.
15. Powell, A. G., Farrar, E., & Cohen, D. K. (1985). The shopping mall high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
16. Rock, D. A., & Pollack, J. M. (1995). The relationship between gains in achievement in mathematics and selected course taking behaviors. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. (NCES Report 95-714)
17. Rosenbaum, P., & Rubin, D. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41-55.
18. Sebring, P. A. (1987). Consequences of differential amounts of high school course work: Will the new graduation requirements help? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 258-273.
19. Shah, B. V., Barnwell, B. G., Hunt, P. N., and LaVange, L M. (1992). SUDAAN user's manual. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute.
20. Stevenson, D. L., Schiller, K. S., & Schneider, B. (1994). Sequences of opportunities for learning. Sociology of Education, 67, 184-198.
21. Wilson, B. L., and Rossman, G. B. (1993). Mandating academic excellence: High school responses to state curriculum reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
22. Witte, J. F. (1992). Private school versus public school achievement: Are there findings that should affect the educational choice debate? Economics of Education Review, 11, 371-394.