Closing the Achievement Gap in Math: The Long-Term Effects of Eighth-Grade Algebra

Journal of Advanced Academics

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 34-59

  Spielhagen, Frances R ^a  

^a MOUNT SAINT MARY COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 80655146360     PISSN: 1932202X     EISSN: 21629536     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4219/jaa-2006-344     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Assouline S., Lupkowski-Shoplik A., (2005). Developing math talent: A guide for educating gifted and advanced learners in math. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press
2. Cogan L., Schmidt H., Wiley D., (2001). 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, 23, 323–341
3. Colangelo N., Assouline S. G., Gross M. U. M., (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America's brightest students (Vol. 1). Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development
4. Gabelko N., Sosniak L., (2002). “Someone just like me”: When academic engagement trumps race, class, and gender. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 400–408
5. Gallagher J. J., (2004). Public policy in gifted education. In Reis S., (Series Ed.), Essential readings in gifted education, vol. 12. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press
6. Gamoran A., Hannigan E. C., (2000). Algebra for everyone? Benefits of college-preparatory mathematics for students of diverse abilities in early secondary school. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22, 241–254
7. Greene B., Herman M., Haury D., (2000). TIMSS: What have we learned about math and science teaching? Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED463948)
8. Hallinan M., (2000, August). Ability group effects on high school learning outcomes. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Washington, DC
9. Ma X., (2000, September/October). A longitudinal assessment of antecedent course work in mathematics and subsequent mathematical attainment. Journal of Educational Research, 94, 16–29
10. National Center for Education Statistics. (1994). Effective schools in mathematics (NCES No. 065-000-0076-1). Washington, DC: Author
11. National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). Third International Mathematics and Science Study (NCES No. 2001-027). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement
12. National Center for Educational Statistics. (2001). NAEP 2000 mathematics assessment. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement
13. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
14. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
15. Schiller K. S., Muller C., (2003). Raising the bar and equity? Effects of state high school graduation requirements and accountability policies on students' mathematics course taking. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 299–315
16. Schmidt W., (2003). Too little, too late: American high schools in an international context. In Ravitch D., (Ed.), Brookings papers on education policy (pp. 253–278). Baltimore: Brookings Institute Press
17. Smith J., (1996). Does an extra year make any difference? The impact of early access to algebra on long-term gains in mathematics achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18, 141–153
18. Spade J., Columba L., Vanfossen B., (1997, April). Tracking in mathematics and science: Courses and course selection procedures. Sociology of Education, 70, 108–127
19. Spielhagen F., (2006). Closing the achievement gap in math: Considering eighth-grade algebra for all students. American Secondary Education, 34(3), 29–42
20. VanTassel-Baska J., (2000). Curriculum policy development for secondary gifted programs: A prescription for reform coherence. NASSP Bulletin, 84(615), 14–29