Does Raising the Bar Level the Playing Field?: Mathematics Curricular Intensification and Inequality in American High Schools, 1982-2004

American Educational Research Journal

Volumn 49, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 685-708

  Domina, Thurston ^a   Saldana, Joshua ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

high school math; standards based reform; tracking

Indexed keywords

EID: 84863741605     PISSN: 00028312     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0002831211426347     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Adelman C.Postsecondary attainment, attendance, curriculum, and performance: Selected Results from the NELS:88/2000 Postsecondary Education Transcript Study (PETS), 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences; 1999:.
2. Adelman C.The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through college. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education; 2006:.
3. Allensworth E.,Nomi T.,Montgomery N.,Lee V. E.College Preparatory Curriculum for All: Academic Consequences of Requiring Algebra and English I for Ninth Graders in Chicago.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2009;31:367-391.
4. Alon S.,Domina T.,Tienda M.Stymied mobility or temporary lull? The puzzle of lagging Hispanic college degree completion.Social Forces. 2010;88 (4): 1807-1832.
5. Angus D. L.,Mirel J.The failed promise of the American high school, 1890-1995. New York: Teacher's College Press; 1999:.
6. Attewell P.,Domina T.Raising the bar: Curricular intensification and academic performance.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2008;30 (1): 51-71.
7. Buchmann C.,DiPrete T.The growing female advantage in college completion: The role of family background and academic achievement.American Sociology Review. 2006;71 (4): 515-541.
8. Burris C. C.,Heubert J. P,Levin H. M.Accelerating mathematics achievement using heterogeneous grouping.American Educational Research Journal. 2006;43 (1): 137-154.
9. Burris C. C.,Wiley E.,Welner K. G.,Murphy J.Accountability, rigor, and detracking: Achievement effects of embracing a challenging curriculum as a universal good for all students.Teachers College Record. 2008;110 (3): 571-607.
10. Cahalan M. W.,Ingels S. J.,Burns L. J.,Planty M.,Daniel B.United States high school sophomores: A twenty-two year comparison, 1980-2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 2006:.
11. Center on Education Policy. (2009). State high school exit exams: Trends in test programs, alternate pathways, and pass rates. Retrieved September 21, 2010, from http://www.ecs.org/html/IssueSection.asp?issueid=108&subissueid=159&s=What+States+Are+Doing.
12. Chaney B.,Burgdorf K.,Atash N.Influencing achievement through high school graduation requirements.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 1997;19 (3): 229-244.
13. Clune W. H.,White P. A.Education reform in the trenches: Increased academic course taking in high schools with lower achieving students in states with higher graduation requirements.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis Spring. 1992;14 (1): 2-20.
14. Conger D.,Long M. C.,Iatarola P.Explaining race, poverty, and gender disparities in advanced course-taking.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 2009;28 (4): 555-576.
15. Dalton B.,Ingels S. J.,Downing J.,Bozick R.,Owings J.Advanced mathematics and science coursetaking in the spring high school senior classes of 1982, 1992, and 2004. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education; 2007:.
16. Darling-Hammond L.,Berry B.The evolution of teacher policy. Santa Monica, CA: RAND; 1988:.
17. Dee T.,Jacob B.The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research; 2009:.
18. DoughertyC.MellorL.JianS. (2006). Orange juice or orange drink? Ensuring that "advanced courses" live up to their labels (NCEA Policy Brief No. 1). Retrieved October 12, 2011from http://www.nc4ea.org/files/orange_juice_or_orange_drink_02-13-06.pdf.
19. Education Commission of the States. (2010). Standard high school graduation requirements (50 state). Retrieved September 21, 2010, from http://mb2.ecs.org/reports/Report.aspx?id=735.
20. Gamoran A.Curriculum Standardization and Equality of Opportunity in Scottish Education: 1984-90.Sociology of Education. 1996;69:1-21.
21. Gamoran A.American Schooling and Educational Inequality: A Forecast for the 21st Century.Sociology of Education. 2001;74:135-153.
22. Gamoran A.,Porter A. C.,Smithson J.,White P. A.Upgrading high school mathematics instruction: Improving learning opportunities for low-achieving, low-income youth.Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 1997;19 (4): 325-338.
23. Goldin C.,Katz L.The Race Between Education and Technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2008:.
24. Hallinan M. T.Tracking: From theory to practice.Sociology of Education. 1994;67:79-84.
25. Heckman J. J.,LaFontaine P. A.The American high school graduation rate: Trends and levels.Review of Economics and Statistics. 2010;92 (2): 244-262.
26. Ingels S. J.,Pratt D. J.,Rogers J. E.,Siegel P. H.,Stutts E. S.Education Longitudinal Study of 2002: Base year data file user's manual. Washington, DC: US Department of Education; 2004:.
27. Kelly S.The contours of tracking in North Carolina.High School Journal. 2007;90 (4): 15-31.
28. Kelly S.Do increased levels of parental involvement account for social class difference in track placement?.Social Science Research. 2004;33:626-659.
29. Kelly S.The Black-White gap in mathematics course taking.Sociology of Education. 2009;82 (1): 47-69.
30. Long M. C.,Iatarola P.,Conger D.Explaining gaps in readiness for college-level math: The role of high school courses.Education Finance and Policy. 2009;4 (1): 1-33.
31. Lucas S. R.Tracking inequality: Stratification and mobility in American high schools. New York: Teachers College Press; 1999:.
32. Lucas S. R.Effectively maintained inequality: Education transitions, track mobility, and social background effects.American Journal of Sociology. 2001;106 (6): 1642-1690.
33. Moore D. R.,Davenport S.The new improved sorting machine. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement; 1988:.
34. A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education; 1983:.
35. Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author; 1989:.
36. Report of the Committee of Ten on secondary school systems. New York: American Book; 1894:.
37. Educating America: State strategies for achieving the national educational goals. Washington, DC: National Governors' Association; 1990:.
38. Washington, DC: National Governors' Association; 2005:.
39. Nord C.,Roey S.,Perkins R.,Lyons M.,Lemanski N.,Brown J., et alThe nation's report card: America's high school graduates. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 2011:.
40. Oakes J.Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1985:.
41. Oakes J.,Guiton G.Matchmaking: The Dyanmics of High School Tracking Decisions.American Education Research Journal. 1995;32:3-33.
42. Oakes J.,Wells A. S.,Jones M.,Datnow A.Detracking: The social construction of ability, cultural politics, and resistance to reform.Teachers College Record. 1997;98 (3): 482-510.
43. Porter A. C.Brookings papers on education policy 1998. Ravitch D., ed. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press; 1998:123-172.
44. Powell A. G.,Farrar E.,Cohen D. K.The Shopping Mall High School: Winners and Losers in the Educational Marketplace. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company; 1985:.
45. Raftery A. E.,Hout M.Maximally Maintained Inequality: Expansion, Reform, and Opportunity in Irish Education, 1921-75.Sociology of Education. 1993;66:41-62.
46. Sandholtz J. H.,Ogawa R. T.,Scribner S. P.Standards gaps: Unintended consequences of local standards-based reform.Teachers College Record. 2004;106 (6): 1177-1202.
47. Schiller K. S.,Muller C.Raising the bar and equity? Effects of high school graduation requirements and accountability practices on students' mathematics course taking.Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2003;25 (3): 299-318.
48. Schneider B.,Swanson C.,Riegle-Crumb C.Opportunities for learning: Course sequences and positional advantages.Social Psychology of Education. 1998;2:25-53.
49. Sorenson A. B.Organizational Differentiation of Students and Educational Opportunity.Sociology of Education. 1970;43:355-76.
50. Timar T. B.,Kirp D. L.Education reform in the 1980s: Lessons from the states.Phi Delta Kappan. 1989;70 (7): 504-511.
51. Wells A. S.,Oakes J.Potential pitfalls of systemic reform: Early lessons from research on detracking.Sociology of Education. 1996;69 (extra issue): 135-143.
52. Welner K. G.Legal rights, local wrongs: When community control collides with educational equity. Albany: State University of New York Press; 2001:.
53. Wilson B. L.,Rossman G. B.Mandating academic excellence: High school responses to state curriculum reform. New York: Teachers College Press; 1993:.
54. Yonezawa S.,Wells A. S.,Sarna I.Choosing tracks: "Freedom of choice" in detracking schools.American Educational Research Journal. 2002;39 (1): 37-67.