Longitudinal effects of school context and practice on middle school mathematics achievement

Journal of Educational Research

Volumn 99, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 347-357

  Zvoch, Keith ^a   Stevens, Joseph J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

Author keywords

Longitudinal effects; Middle school mathematics achievement; School context and practice

Indexed keywords

EID: 33845346129     PISSN: 00220671     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3200/JOER.99.6.347-357     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Aitkin, M., & Longford, N. (1986). Statistical modeling issues in school effectiveness studies. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 149, 1-43.
2. Boyle, M. H., & Willms, J. D. (2001). Multilevel modeling of hierarchical data in developmental studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 141-162.
3. Brookover, W. B., Beady, C., Flood, P., Schweitzer, J., & Wisenbaker, J. (1979). Schools, social systems, and student achievement: Schools can make a difference. New York: Praeger.
4. Bryk, A. S., &. Raudenbush, S. W. (1987). Application of hierarchical linear models to assessing change. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 147-158.
5. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1988). Toward a more appropriate conceptualization of research on school effects: A three-level hierarchical linear model. In R. D. Bock (Ed.), Multilevel analysis of educational data (pp. 159-204). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
6. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
7. Burstein, L. (1980). The analysis of multilevel data in educational research and evaluation. In D. C. Berliner (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 8). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
8. Central Advisory Council for Education. (1967). Children and their primary schools: A report. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
9. Cain, J. S. (2002). An evaluation of the Connected Mathematics project. The Journal of Educational Research, 95, 224-233.
10. Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. F., McPartland, J., Mood, A. H., Weinfield, R. D., et al. (1966). Equality and educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
11. Coleman, J. S., Hoffer, T., & Kilgore, S. (1982). Cognitive outcomes in public and private schools. Sociology of Education, 55, 65-76.
12. CTB/McGraw-Hill. (1996). TerraNova Publication Technical Bulletin. Monterey, CA: Author.
13. CTB/McGraw-Hill. (1997). TerraNova Technical Bulletin 1. Monterey, CA: Author.
14. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1). Retrieved February 18, 2003, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/
15. D'Agostino, J. V. (2000). Instructional and school effects on students' longitudinal reading and mathematics achievements. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11, 197-235.
16. Druva, C. A., & Anderson, R. D. (1983). Science teacher characteristics by teacher behavior and by student outcome: A meta-analysis of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 467-479.
17. Ferguson, R. F. (1991). Paying for public education. New evidence on how and why money matters. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28, 465-498.
18. Ferguson, R. F., & Ladd, H. F. (1996). How and why money matters: An analysis of Alabama schools. In H. F. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 265-298). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
19. Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (1997). Evaluating the effect of teacher degree level on educational performance. In W. Fowler (Ed.), Developments in school finance, 1996 (pp. 199-208). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (NCES 97-535).
20. Goldstein H. I. (1987). Multilevel models in educational and social science research. London: Oxford University Press.
21. Greenwald, R., Hedges, L. V., & Laine, R. D. (1996). The effect of school resources on student achievement. Review of Educational Research, 66, 361-391.
22. Hanushek, E. A. (1971). Teacher characteristics and gains in student achievement: Estimation using micro data. American Economic Review, 61, 280-288.
23. Hanushek, E. A. (1986). The economics of schooling: Production and efficiency in public schools. Journal of Economic Literature, 24, 1141-1177.
24. Hanushek, E. A. (1996). A more complete picture of school resource policies. Review of Educational Research, 66, 397-409.
25. Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., & Rivkin, S. G. (1998). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement (Working Paper No. 6691). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
26. Hauser, R. M., Sewell, W. H., & Alwin, D. F. (1976). High school effects on achievement. In W. H. Sewell, R. M. Hauser, & D. L. Featherman (Eds.), Schooling and achievement in American society (pp. 309-341). New York: Academic Press.
27. Hawk, P., Coble, C. R., & Swanson, M. (1985). Certification: It does matter. Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3), 13-15.
28. Heck, R. H. (2000). Examining the impact of school quality on school outcomes and improvement: A value-added approach. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36, 513-552.
29. Jencks, C. S., Smith, M., Ackland, H., Bane, M. J., Cohen, D., Ginter, H., et al. (1972). Inequality: A reassessment of the effect of the family and schooling in America. New York: Basic Books.
30. Lee, V. E., & Bryk, A. S. (1989). A multilevel model of the social distribution of high school achievement. Sociology of Education, 62, 172-192.
31. Lee, V. E., Bryk, A. S., & Smith, J. B. (1993). The organization of effective secondary schools. Review of Research in Education, 19, 171-267.
32. Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (2001). Restructuring high schools for equity and excellence: What works. New York: Teachers College Press.
33. Mandeville, G. K., & Kennedy, E. (1991). The relationship of effective schools indicators and changes in the social distribution of achievement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 2, 14-33.
34. McDill, E. L., & Rigsby, L. C. (1973). Structure and process in secondary schools: The impact of educational climates. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
35. Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13(2), 125-145.
36. Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2000). School effectiveness and teacher effectiveness in mathematics: Some preliminary findings from the evaluation of the mathematics enhancement programme (primary). School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11, 273-303.
37. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2002).
38. Raudenbush, S. W. (2004a, April). Schooling, statistics, and poverty: Can we measure school improvement? Paper presented at the William H. Angoff Memorial Lecture Series, Princeton, NJ. Retrieved January 22, 2005, from www.ets.org/research/
39. Raudenbush, S. W. (2004b). What are value-added models estimating and what does this imply for statistical practice? Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29, 121-129.
40. Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., & Congdon, R. T. (2004). HLM 6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
41. Raudenbush, S. W., & Willms, J. D. (1995). The estimation of school effects. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 20, 307-335.
42. Reynolds, D. (1992). School effectiveness and school improvement: An updated review of the British literature. In D. Reynolds & P. Cuttance (Eds.), School effectiveness: Research, policy, and practice (pp. 1-24). London: Cassell.
43. Reys, R., Reys, B., Lapan, R., Holliday, G., & Wasman, D. (2003). Assessing the impact of standards-based middle grades mathematics curriculum material on student achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(2), 74-95.
44. Ridgway, J. E., Zawojewski, J. S., Hoover, M. N., & Lambdin, D. V. (2003). Student attainment in the Connected Mathematics curriculum. In S. L. Senk & D. R. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-based school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? (pp. 193-224). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
45. Riordan, J., & Noyce, P. (2001). The impact of two standards-based mathematics curricula on student achievement in Massachusetts. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32, 368-398.
46. Rowan, B., Correnti, R., & Miller, R. J. (2002). What large scale, survey research tells us about teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the Prospects study of elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 104, 1525-1567.
47. Sanders, W. L., & Horn, S. P. (1994). The Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS): Mixed-model methodology in educational assessment. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 8, 299-311.
48. Scheerens, J. (1992). Effective schooling: Research, theory, and practice. London: Cassell.
49. Scheerens, J., & Bosker, R. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
50. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2002). Making mathematics work for all children: Issues of standards, testing, and equity. Educational Researcher, 31(1), 13-25.
51. Schreiber, J. B., & Griffin, B. W. (2004). Review of multilevel modeling and multilevel studies in The Journal of Educational Research (1992-2002). The Journal of Educational Research, 98, 24-33.
52. Senk, S. L., & Thompson, D. R. (2003). Standards-based school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
53. Stevens, J. J. (2005). The study of school effectiveness as a problem in research design. In R. Lissitz (Ed.), Value-added modes in education: Theory and applications. Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.
54. Stevens, J. J., Estrada, S., & Parkes, J. (2000, April). Measurement issues in the design of state accountability systems. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
55. Stone, C. A., & Lane, S. (2003). Consequences of a state accountability program: Examining relationships between school performance gains and teacher, student, and school variables. Applied Measurement in Education, 16, 1-26.
56. Summers, A. A., & Wolfe, B. L. (1977). Do schools make a difference? American Economic Review, 67, 639-652.
57. Teddlie, C., & Reynolds, D. (2000). The international handbook of school effectiveness research. New York: Palmer Press.
58. Wayne, A. J., & Youngs, P. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A review. Review of Educational Research, 73(1), 89-122.
59. Williamson, G. L., Appelbaum, M., & Epanchin, A. (1991). Longitudinal analyses of academic achievement. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 61-76.
60. Willms, J. D. (1986). Social class segregation and its relationship to pupils' examination results in Scotland. American Sociological Review, 51, 224-241.
61. Willms, J. D. (1992). Monitoring school performance: A guide for educators. Washington, DC: Palmer Press.
62. Willms, J. D., & Jacobsen, S. (1990). Growth in mathematics skills during the intermediate years: Sex differences and school effects. International Journal of Educational Research, 14, 157-174.
63. Wright, S. W., Horn, S. P., & Sanders, W. L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11, 57-67.
64. Zvoch, K., & Stevens, J. J. (2003). A multilevel, longitudinal model of middle school math and language achievement. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 11(20). Retrieved July 8, 2003, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n20
65. Zvoch, K., & Stevens, J. J. (2005). Sample exclusion and student attrition effects in the longitudinal study of middle school mathematics performance. Educational Assessment, 10(2), 105-123.