Who takes what math and in which track? Using TIMSS to characterize U.S. students' eighth-grade mathematics learning opportunities

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis

Volumn 23, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 323-341

  Cogan, Leland S ^a   Schmidt, William H ^a   Wiley, David E ^b  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035568077     PISSN: 01623737     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/01623737023004323     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Foy, P., Rust, K., & Schleicher, A. (1996). Sample design. In M. O. Martin & D. L. Kelly (Eds.), Third international mathematics and science study technical report: Vol. 1. Design and development (pp. 4-1-4-17). Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
2. Gamoran, A. (1987). The stratification of high school learning opportunities. Sociology of Education, 60 (3), 135-155.
3. Gonzalez, E. J., & Foy, P. (1997). Estimation of sampling variability, design effects, and effective sample sizes. In M. O. Martin & D. L. Kelly (Eds.), Third international mathematics and science study technical report: Vol. 2. Implementation and analysis (pp. 81-100). Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
4. Gonzalez, E. J., & Smith, T. A. (Eds.). (1997). User guide for the TIMSS international database: Primary and middle school years. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
5. Guiton, G., & Oakes, J. (1995). Opportunity to learn and conceptions of educational equality. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(3), 323-336.
6. Kifer, E., Wolfe, R. G., & Schmidt, W. H. (1993). Understanding patterns of student growth. In L. Burstein (Ed.), The IEA study of mathematics III: Student growth and classroom processes (Vol. 3, pp. 101-127). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
7. Kuiper, W., & Knuver, A. (1997). The Netherlands. In D. F. Robitaille (Ed.), National contexts for mathematics and science education (pp. 259-269). Vancouver: Pacific Educational Press.
8. Lee, V. E., & Bryk, A. S. (1988). Curriculum tracking as mediating the social distribution of high school achievement. Sociology of Education, 61(2), 78-94.
9. Lee, V. E., Smith, J. B., & Croninger, R. G. (1997). How high school organization influences the equitable distribution of learning in mathematics and science. Sociology of Education, 70(2), 128-150.
10. McKnight, C. C., Crosswhite, F. J., Dossey, J. A., Kifer, E., Swafford, J. O., Travers, K. J., & Cooney, T. J. (1987). The underachieving curriculum: Assessing U.S. school mathematics from an international perspective. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Company.
11. Monseur, C., & Brusselmans-Dehairs, C. (1997). Belgium. In D. F. Robitaille (Ed.), National contexts for mathematics and science education (pp. 50-61). Vancouver: Pacific Educational Press.
12. National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century. (2000). Before it's too late. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
13. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
14. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
15. National Research Council. (1989). Everybody counts: A report to the nation on the future of mathematics education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
16. NCES (National Center for Education Statistics). (1994). Curricular differentiation in public high schools (NCES 95-360). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
17. NCES. (1995). Common Core of Data Public School Universe, 1994-1995 (electronic database). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved [month][day],[year] from http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/
18. NCES. (1996). Pursuing excellence (NCES 97-198). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
19. NCES. (2000). Pursuing excellence: Comparisons of international eighth-grade mathematics and science achievement from a U.S. perspective, 1995 and 1999 (NCES 2001-028). Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education.
20. NCES. (2001). The nation's report card: Mathematics 2000 (NCES 2001-517). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
21. 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.
22. Oakes, J., & Guiton, G. (1995). Matchmaking: The dynamics of high school tracking decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 3-33.
23. Oakes, J., & Lipton, M. (1990). Tracking and ability grouping: A structural barrier to access and achievement. In J. I. Goodlad & P. Keating (Eds.), Access to knowledge: An agenda for our nation's schools (pp. 187-204). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
24. Oakes, J., Ormseth, T., Bell, R., & Camp, P. (1990). Multiplying inequalities: The effects of race, social class, and tracking on opportunities to learn mathematics and science. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
25. Raudenbush, S. W., Fotiu, R. P., & Cheong, Y. F. (1998). Inequality of access to educational resources: A national report card for eighth-grade math. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(4), 253-267.
26. Riley, R. W. (1997). Mathematics equals opportunity (White Paper). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
27. Riquarts, K. (1997). Germany. In D. F. Robitaille (Ed.), National contexts for mathematics and science education (pp. 140-151). Vancouver: Pacific Educational Press.
28. Schmidt, W. H. (1993). The distribution of instructional time to mathematical content: One aspect of opportunity to learn. In L. Burstein (Ed.), The IEA study of mathematics III: Student growth and classroom processes (Vol. 3, pp. 129-145). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
29. Schmidt, W. H., & Cogan, L. S. (1996). Development of the TIMSS Context Questionnaires. In M. O. Martin & D. L. Kelly (Eds.), Third international mathematics and science study technical report: Vol. 1. Design and development (pp. 5-1-5-22). Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
30. Schmidt, W. H., Jakwerth, P. M., & McKnight, C. C. (1998). Curriculum-sensitive assessment: Content does make a difference. International Journal of Educational Research, 29, 503-527.
31. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C., Cogan, L. S., Jakwerth, P. M., & Houang, R. T. (1999). Facing the consequences: Using TIMSS for a closer look at U.S. mathematics and science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
32. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C., Houang, R. T., Wang, H. A., Wiley, D. E., Cogan, L. S., & Wolfe, R. G. (2001). Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
33. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C., & Raizen, S. (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
34. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C., Valverde, G. A., Houang, R. T., & Wiley, D. E. (1997). Many visions, many aims: Vol. 1. A cross-national investigation of curricular intentions in school mathematics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
35. Shanker, A. (1995). The case for high stakes and real consequences. In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Debating the future of American education: Do we need national standards and assessments? (pp. 145-153). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
36. Spade, J. Z., Columba, L., & Vanfossen, B. E. (1997). Tracking in mathematics and science: Courses and course-selection procedures. Sociology of Education, 70(2), 108-127.
37. Stevenson, D. L., Schiller, K. S., & Schneider, B. (1994). Sequences of opportunities of learning. Sociology of Education, 67, 184-198.
38. Stodolsky, S. S., & Grossman, P. L. (1995). The impact of subject matter on curricular activity: An analysis of five academic subjects. American Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 227-249.
39. University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. (1992). Transition mathematics. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
40. Wang, J. (1998). Opportunity to learn: The impacts and policy implications. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(3), 137-156.