Curricular reform in mathematics and science since a nation at risk

Peabody Journal of Education

Volumn 79, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 105-129

  Smith, Thomas M ^a  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84861270846     PISSN: 0161956X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15327930pje7901_6     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Achieve, Inc. (2000). High standards: Giving all students a fair shot. [Policy Brief]. Washington DC: Author.
2. Achieve, Inc. (2001). Standards and accountability: Strategies for maintaining momentum. [Policy Brief]. Washington, DC: Author.
3. Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the toolbox: Academic intensity, attendance patterns, and bachelor’s degree attainment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
4. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Project 2061. (1999a). Heavybooks light on learning: Not one middle grades science text rated satisfactory. [Press Release]. Retrieved October 24, 2001, from http://www.project2061.org/newsinfo/press/rl092899.htm
5. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Project 2061. (1999b). Middle grades mathematics textbooks: A benchmarks-based evaluation. [Press Release]. Retrieved October 24, 2001, from http://www.project2061.org/matheval/intro.htm
6. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Project 2061. (2000a). Algebra for all—Not with today’s textbooks, says AAAS. [Press Release]. Retrieved October 24, 2001, from http://www.project2061.org/newsinfo/press/rl000426.htm
7. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Project 2061. (2000b). Big biology books fail to convey big ideas, reports AAAS’s Project 2061. [Press Release]. Retrieved October 24, 2001, from
8. American Federation of Teachers (AFT). (2001). Making standards matter 2001. Washington, DC. Retrieved November 26, 2001, from http://www.aft.org/edissues/standards/msm2001/
9. Baker, D. P., & Jones, D. P. (1993). Creating gender equality: Cross-national stratification and mathematical performance. Sociology of Education, 66, 91–103.
10. Belden, Russonello, & Stewart Research and Communications. (2000). Making the grade: Teachers’ attitudes toward academic standards and state testing: Findings of National Survey of Public School Teachers for Education Week. Washington, DC: Author.
11. Center for Education Reform. (2001). The textbook conundrum: What are the children learning and who decides? Washington, DC. Retrieved June 13, 2001 from http://edreform.com/forum/2001/textbook.pdf
12. Cicourel, A.V., & Kituse, J. I. (1963). The educational decision makers. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.
13. Coleman, J. S. (1966). Equal schools or equal students. The Public Interest, 4, 70–75.
14. Coleman, J. S. (1968). The concept of equality of educational opportunity. Harvard Educational Review, 38, 17–22.
15. Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., & York, R. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
16. Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (2001). New tools for analyzing teaching, curriculum, and standards in mathematics and science. Washington, DC.
17. Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (2002). Key state education policies on K–12 education: 2002. Washington, DC. Retrieved February 21, 2003, from http://www.ccsso.org/pdfs/KeyState2002.pdf
18. DeBoer, G. (1984). A study of gender effects in the science and mathematics course-taking behavior of a group of students who graduated from college in the late 1970s. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 95–103.
19. Eyelon, B., & Linn, M. C. (1988). Learning and instruction: An examination of four research perspectives in science education. Review of Educational Research, 58, 251–302.
20. Erickson, F. (1975). Gatekeeping and the melting pot: Interaction in counseling encounters. Harvard Educational Review, 45, 44–70.
21. Finn, C. E., & Petrilli, M. J. (2000). The state of state standards 2000. Washington, DC: The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. Retrieved November 26, 2001, from http://www.edexcellence.net/library/soss2000/2000soss.html#2000
22. Flanders, J. R. (1987). How much of the content in mathematics textbooks is new? Arithmetic Teacher, 35(1), 18–23.
23. Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J. H. (1986). Black students’ school success: Coping with the “Burden of Acting White.” The Urban Review, 18(3), 176–205.
24. Gamoran, A. (1987). The stratification of high school learning opportunities. Sociology of Education, 60, 135–155.
25. Gamoran, A. (1997). Curriculum change as a reform strategy: Lessons from the United States and Scotland. Teachers College Record, 98, 608–28.
26. Gamoran, A., & Hannigan, E. C. (2000). Algebra for everyone? Benefits of college preparatory mathematics for students with diverse abilities in early secondary school. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22, 241–254.
27. Hanson, S. L., Schaub, M., & Baker, D. P. (1996). Gender stratification in the science pipeline: A comparative analysis of seven countries Gender and Society, 10, 271–90.
28. Heyns, B. (1974). Social selection and stratification within schools. American Journal of Sociology, 79, 89–102.
29. Jencks, C., & Phillips, M. (Eds.). (1998). The Black-White test score gap. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
30. Jones, L. V., Davenport, E. C., Bryson, A., Bekhuis, T., & Zwick, R. (1986). Mathematics and science test scores as related to courses taken in high school and other factors. Journal of Educational Measurement, 23, 197–208.
31. Lee, V. E., & Bryk, A. S. (1988). Curriculum tracking as mediating the social distribution of high school achievement. Sociology of Education, 61, 78–94.
32. th and 10th grades. [NCES 93–455 by D. Rock, J. Owings, & R. Lee]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
33. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (1995). Social background differences in high school mathematics and science coursetaking and achievement. [NCES 95–206 by T. Hoffer, K. Rasinski, & W. Moore]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
34. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (1997). Science proficiency and course taking in high school: The relationship of science coursetaking patterns to increases in science proficiency between 8th and 12th grades. [NCES 97–838 by T. Madigan]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
35. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (1998). High school curriculum structure: Effects on coursetaking and achievement in mathematics for high school graduates—An examination of data from the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988. [Working Paper No. 98–09 by V. E. Lee, D. T. Burkam, T. Chow-Hoy, B. A. Smerdon, & D. Geverdt]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
36. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2000a). Monitoring school quality: An indicators report. [NCES 2001–030 by D. P. Mayer, J. E. Mullens, M. T. Moore, & J. Ralph]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
37. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2000b). Trends in educational equity for girls and women. [NCES 2000–030 by Y. Bae, S. Choy, C. Geddes, J. Sable, & T. Snyder]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
38. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2002a). The condition of education 2002. [NCES 2002–025 by J. Wirt, S. Choy, D. Gerald, S. Provasnik, P. Rooney, S. Watanabe, & R. Tobin]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
39. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2002b). The digest of education statistics 2001. [NCES 2002–130 by T. D. Snyder]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Retrieved February 24, 2001, from http://www.nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/digest2001/
40. National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE). (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://www.goalline.org/Goal%20Line/NatAtRisk.html
41. National Education Commission on Time and Learning (NECTL). (1994). Prisoners of time. Washington, DC. Retrieved August 12, 1999, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/PrisonersOfTime/
42. National Research Council. (1996). The national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/books/0309064767/html/
43. Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
44. Porter, A. C., Smithson, J., & Osthoff, E. (1994). Standard setting as a strategy for upgrading high school mathematics and science. In R. F. Elmore & S. H. Fuhrman (Eds.), The governance of curriculum: The 1994 ASCD yearbook (pp. 138–66). Alexandria VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
45. Powell, A. G., Farrar E., & Cohen, D. K. (1985). The shopping mall high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
46. Public Agenda. (2000). Survey finds little sign of backlash against academic standards or standardized tests. New York: Author.
47. Public Agenda Online. (2001). Reality check 2001. New York. Retrieved October 23, 2001, from http://www.publicagenda.org/specials/rc2001/reality.htm
48. Rosenbaum, J. E. (1976). Making inequality. New York: Wiley.
49. Rosenbaum, J. E. (1980). Track misperceptions and frustrated college plans: An analysis of the effects of tracks and track misperceptions in the national longitudinal survey. Sociology of Education, 53, 74–88.
50. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., & Raizen, S. A. (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education. Boston: Kluwer.
51. Sells, L. W. (1978). The forum: Mathematics—Acritical filter. The Science Teacher, 1–4S(2), 28–9.
52. Smith, J. (1996). Does an extra year make any difference? The impact of early access to algebra on long-term gains in mathematics attainment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18, 141–53.