Upgrading high school mathematics instruction: Improving learning opportunities for low-achieving, low-income youth

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 1997, Pages 325-338

  Gamoran, Adam ^a   Porter, Andrew C ^a   Smithson, John ^a   White, Paula A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0031292417     PISSN: 01623737     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/01623737019004325     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Barr, R., & Dreeben, R. (1983). How schools work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
3. Bryk, A. S., Raudenbush, S. W., & Congdon, R. T. (1995). Hierarchical linear modeling with the HLM/2L and HLM/3L programs. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
4. California State Department of Education. (1985). Mathematics framework for California public schools: Kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento, CA: Author.
5. 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.
6. Conant, J. B. (1959). The American high school today. New York: McGraw-Hill.
7. Gamoran, A. (1987). The stratification of high school learning opportunities. Sociology of Education, 60, 135-155.
8. Gamoran, A. (1993). Alternative uses of ability grouping in secondary schools: Can we bring high-quality instruction to low-ability classes? American Journal of Education, 101, 1-22.
9. Gamoran, A., & Hannigan, E. (1997, March). Algebra for everyone? Benefits of college-preparatory mathematics for students with diverse abilities in early secondary school. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
10. Gamoran, A., & Nystrand, M. (1994). Tracking, instruction, and achievement. International Journal of Educational Research, 21, 217-231.
11. Gamoran, A., Nystrand, M., Berends, M., & LePore, P. C. (1995). An organizational analysis of the effects of ability grouping. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 687-715.
12. Gamoran, A., & Weinstein, M. (in press). Differentiation and opportunity in restructured schools. American Journal of Education.
13. Grossman, P., & Stodolsky, S. S. (1995). Content as context: The role of school subjects in secondary school teaching. Educational Researcher, 24(8), 5-11, 23.
14. Hallinan, M. T. (1996). Track mobility in secondary school. Social Forces, 74, 983-1002.
15. Hoffer, T. (1992). Middle school ability grouping and student achievement in science and mathematics. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14, 205-228.
16. Hoffer, T., & Gamoran, A. (1993, August). Effects of instructional differences among ability groups on student achievement in middle-school science and mathematics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Miami, FL.
17. Kerckhoff, A. C. (1986). Effects of ability grouping in British secondary schools. American Sociological Review, 51, 842-858.
18. Loveless, T. (1994). The influence of subject areas on middle school tracking policies. Research in Sociology of Education and Socialization, 10, 147-175.
19. Massell, D., & Fuhrman, S. (with Kirst, M., Odden, A., Wohlstetter, P., Carver, C., & Yee, G.). (1994). Ten years of state education reform, 1983-1993: Overview with four case studies. New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
20. National Center for Education Statistics. (1992). National assessment of educational progress 1990 assessment public release items. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
21. National Center for Education Statistics. (1994). Curricular differentiation in public high schools (Document No. NCES 95-360). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
22. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
23. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
24. Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
25. Oakes, J. (1990). Multiplying inequalities. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
26. Oakes, J. (1994). More than misapplied technology: A normative and political response to Hallinan on tracking. Sociology of Education, 67, 84-89.
27. Oakes, J., Gamoran, A., & Page, R. N. (1992). Curriculum differentiation: Opportunities, outcomes, and meanings. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 570-608). New York: Macmillan.
28. Porter, A.C., Archibald, D., & Tyree, A. (1991). Reforming the curriculum: Will empowerment policies replace control? In S. H. Fuhrman & B. Malen (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing. 1990 yearbook of the Politics of Education Association (pp. 11-36). London: Taylor and Francis.
29. Porter, A. C., Kirst, M. W., Osthoff, E. J., Smithson, J. L., & Schneider, S. A. (1993). Reform up close: A classroom analysis. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
30. Rosenbaum, J. E. (1976). Making inequality: The hidden curriculum of high school tracking. New York: Wiley.
31. Slavin, R. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60, 471-499.
32. Wheelock, A. (1992). Crossing the tracks: How untracking can save America's schools. New York: The New Press.
33. White, P. A. (1995). Math innovations and classroom practice: Upgrading of the math curriculum at the high school level. Madison, WI: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
34. White, P. A., Gamoran, A., Smithson, J., & Porter, A. C. (1996). Upgrading the high school mathematics curriculum: Math course-taking patterns in seven high schools in California and New York. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18, 285-307.
35. White, P. A., Porter, A. C., Gamoran, A., & Smithson, J. (1996). CPRE policy brief: Upgrading high school math: A look at three transition courses. New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
36. Wilson, B. L., & Rossman, G. B. (1993). Mandating academic excellence. New York: Teachers College Press.