Accelerating mathematics achievement using heterogeneous grouping

American Educational Research Journal

Volumn 43, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 105-136

  Burris, Carol Corbett ^a   Heubert, Jay P ^b,c   Levin, Henry M ^b  

^a Rockville Centre Union Free School District   (United States)

^b Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

^c TC Box 157 ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Accelerated education; Educational equity; Mathematics; Tracking

Indexed keywords

EID: 33645347318     PISSN: 00028312     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/00028312043001105     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the tool box: Academic intensity, attendance patterns and bachelor's degree attainment. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
2. Atanda, R. (1999). Do gatekeeper courses expand education options? (NCES Publication No. 1999303). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
3. Bloom, H. S., Ham, S., Melton, L., & O'Brient, J. (2001). Evaluating the accelerated schools approach: A look at early implementation and impacts on student achievement in eight elementary schools. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
4. Brewer, D. J., Rees, D. I., & Argys, L. M. (1995). Detracking America's schools: The reform without cost? Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 210-212, 214-215.
5. Burris, C. C., & Welner, K. G. (2005). Closing the achievement gap by detracking. Phi Delta Kappan, 86, 594-598.
6. Cogan, L. S., Schmidt, W. H., & Wiley, D. E. (2001). Who takes what mathematics and in which track? Using TIMSS to characterize U.S. students' eighth-grade mathematics learning opportunities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 323-341.
7. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
8. Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). Standards and assessments: Where we are and what we need. Teachers College Record. Retrieved March 5, 2003, from http://www.tcrecord.org
9. Darling-Hammond, L., & Falk, B. (1997). Using standards and assessments to support student learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 190-199.
10. Epstein, J. L., & MacIver, D. J. (1992). Opportunities to learn: Effects on eighth graders of curriculum offerings and instructional approaches (Report No. 34). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
11. Figlio, D. N., & Page, M. E. (2002). School choice and the distributional effects of ability tracking: Does separation increase inequality? Journal of Urban Economics, 51, 497-514.
12. Finley, M. K. (1984). Teachers and tracking in a comprehensive high school. Sociology of Education, 57, 233-243.
13. Finnan, C., & Swanson, J. D. (2000). Accelerating the learning of all students. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
14. Gamoran, A., & Weinstein, M. (1998). Differentiation and opportunity in restructured schools. American Journal of Education, 106, 385-415.
15. Goycochea, B. B. (2000). College prep mathematics in secondary schools: Access denied. Dissertations Abstracts International, 61(4), 1333.
16. Grossman, P. L., & Stodolsky, S. S. (1995). Content as context: The role of school subjects in secondary school teaching. Educational Researcher, 24(8), 5-11, 23.
17. Hallinan, M. T. (1994). Tracking from theory to practice. Sociology of Education, 67, 79-91.
18. Heubert, J. P. (2002). First do no harm: How the misuse of promotion and graduation tests hurts our neediest students. Educational Leadership, 60(4), 26-31.
19. Heubert, J. P., & Hauser, R. M. (Eds.). (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
20. Horn, L., & Nunez, A. (2000). Mapping the road to college: First-generation students' mathematics track, planning strategies and context of support (NCES Publication No. 2000-153). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
21. Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000). Applied logistic regression (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
22. Kerckhoff, A. C. (1986). Effects of ability grouping in British secondary schools. American Sociological Review, 51, 842-858.
23. Kifer, E. (1993). Opportunities, talents and participation. In L. Burstein (Ed.), The IEA Study of Mathematics III: Student growth and classroom processes (pp. 279-308). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
24. 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 (pp. 101-127). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
25. Kulik, C., & Kulik, J. A. (1982). Effects of ability grouping on secondary school students: A meta-analysis of evaluation findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 415-428.
26. Kulik, J. A. (1992). An analysis of the research on ability grouping: Historical and contemporary perspectives. Storrs, CT: National Center of the Gifted and Talented.
27. Levin, H. M. (1988). Accelerated schools for at-risk students (Report No. 142). New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Policy Research in Education, Rutgers University.
28. Levin, H. M. (1997). Raising school productivity: An x-efficiency approach. Economics of Education Review, 16, 303-312.
29. Loveless, T. (1994). The influence of subject matter on middle school tracking policies. Research in Sociology in Education, 10, 147-175.
30. Loveless, T. (1998). The tracking and ability grouping debate. Retrieved January 1, 2005, from http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/publication/ publication.cfm?id=127
31. Loveless, T. (1999). The tracking wars: State reform meets school policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
32. Lucas, S. R. (1999). Tracking inequality: Stratification and mobility in American high schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
33. Maggio, H. D. (1988). A study of identification procedures in an eighth grade acceleration program (New York). Dissertations Abstracts International, 49(9), 2524.
34. Mason, D. A., Schroeter, D. D., Combs, R. K., & Washington, K. (1992). Assigning average-achieving eighth graders to advanced mathematics classes in an urban junior high. Elementary School Journal, 92, 587-599.
35. McKnight, C. C. (1987). The underachieving curriculum: Assessing U.S. school mathematics from an international perspective. A national report on the Second International Mathematics Study. Champaign, IL: Stipes.
36. Menard, S. (1995). Applied logistic regression analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37. Mosteller, F., Light, R. J., & Sachs, J. A. (1996). Sustained inquiry in education: Lessons from skill grouping and class size. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 797-843.
38. National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Digest of education statistics, 2001: Chapter 2. elementary and secondary education. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
39. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
40. Natriello, G., & Pallas, A. M. (1999). The development and impact of high stakes testing. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 443 871)
41. New York State Education Department. (1984). Action plan to improve elementary and secondary education. Albany: University of the State of New York.
42. New York State Education Department. (2001). Regents examinations, regents competency tests and proficiency examinations: School administrator's manual 2001 edition. Albany: University of the State of New York.
43. New York State Education Department. (2004). What is a similar school? Albany: University of the State of New York.
44. Oakes, J. (1982). The reproduction of inequity: The content of secondary school tracking. Urban Review, 14, 107-120.
45. Oakes, J. (1986). Keeping track, Part 1: The policy and practice of curriculum inequality. Phi Delta Kappan, 68, 12-17.
46. 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.
47. Pendergast, A. (Ed.). (1989). Everybody counts: A report to the nation on the future of mathematics education. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
48. Peterson, J. M. (1989). Remediation is no remedy. Educational Leadership, 46(6), 24-25.
49. Riley, R. W. (1997). Mathematics equals opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
50. Rose, H., & Betts, J. R. (2004). The effect of high school courses on earnings. Review of Economics and Statistics, 86, 497-513.
51. 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 (pp. 279-308). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
52. Schmidt, W. H. (2004). A vision for mathematics. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 6-11.
53. Schmidt, W. H., Houang, R., & Cogan, L. (2002). A coherent curriculum: The case of mathematics. American Educator. Retrieved September 15, 2003, from http://www.aft.org/american_educator/summer2002/curriculum.pdf
54. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. 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. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
55. Singham, M. (2003). The achievement gap: Myths and reality. Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 586-591.
56. Slavin, R. E. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60, 471-507.
57. Slavin, R. E., & Braddock, J. H., III. (1993). Ability grouping: On the wrong track. College Board Review, 168, 10-19.
58. Stevenson, D. L., Schiller, K. S., & Schneider, B. (1994). Sequences of opportunities for learning. Sociology of Education, 67, 184-198.
59. Wheelock, A. (1992). The case for untracking. Educational Leadership, 50(2), 6-10.
60. White, P., Gamoran, A., Porter, A. C., & Smithson, J. (1996). Upgrading the high school mathematics curriculum: Mathematics course-taking patterns in seven high schools in California and New York. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18, 285-307.