The Unintended Consequences of an Algebra-for-All Policy on High-Skill Students: Effects on Instructional Organization and Students' Academic Outcomes

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis

Volumn 34, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 489-505

  Nomi, Takako ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

algebra; curricular reform; high school; quasi experimental design; social organization of classrooms

Indexed keywords

EID: 84869155000     PISSN: 01623737     EISSN: 19351062     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0162373712453869     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Allensworth E.,Nomi T.,Montgomery N.,Lee V.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.
2. Attewell P.,Domina T.Raising the bar: Curricular intensity and academic performance.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2008;30 (1): 51-71.
3. Barr R.,Dreeben R.How schools work. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1983:.
4. Boaler J.,Staples M.Creating mathematical futures through an equitable teaching approach: The case of Railside School.Teachers College Record. 2008;110:608-645.
5. Bryk A. S.,Lee V. E.,Holland P. B.Catholic schools and the common good. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1993:.
6. Chaney B.,Burgdorf K.,Atash N.Influencing achievement through high school graduation requirements.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 1997;19 (3): 229-244.
7. Gamoran A.Instructional and institutional effects of ability grouping.Sociology of Education. 1986;59:185-198.
8. Gamoran A.The stratification of high school learning opportunities.Sociology of Education. 1987;60:135-155.
9. Gamoran A.,Hannigan E. C.Algebra for everyone? Benefits of college-preparatory mathematics for students with diverse abilities in early secondary school.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2000;22 (3): 241-254.
10. Gamoran A.,Mare R. D.Secondary school tracking and educational inequality: Compensation, reinforcement, or neutrality?.American Journal of Sociology. 1989;94:1146-1183.
11. Hoffer T. B.High school graduation requirements: Effects on dropping out and student achievement.Teachers College Record. 1997;98:584-607.
12. Hong G.,Nomi T.Weighting methods for assessing policy effects mediated by peer change.Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness. Forthcoming;:.
13. Lee V. E.,Bryk A. S.Curriculum tracking as mediating the social distribution of high school achievement.Sociology of Education. 1988;61:78-94.
14. Lee V. E.,Croninger R. G.,Smith J. B.Course-taking, equity, and mathematics learning: Testing the constrained curriculum hypothesis in U.S. secondary schools.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 1997;19 (2): 99-121.
15. Loveless T.The misplaced math student: Lost in eighth-grade algebra. Washington, DC: Brown Center on Education Policy, the Brookings Institution; 2008:.
16. Loveless T.Tracking and detracking: High achievers in Massachusetts middle schools. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation; 2009:.
17. Lucas S. R.Tracking inequality: Stratification and mobility in American high schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press; 1999:.
18. McKnight C.,Crosswhite F.,Dossey J.,Kifer E.,Swafford J.,Travers K.,Cooney T.The underachieving curriculum: Assessing U.S. school mathematics from an international perspective. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Co; 1987:.
19. McPartland J. M.,Schneider B.Opportunities to learn and student diversity: Prospects and pitfalls of a common core curriculum.Sociology of Education (extra issue). 1996;:66-81.
20. The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education; 2008:.
21. Nomi T.,Allensworth E."Double-dose" algebra as an alternative strategy to remediation: Effects on students' academic outcomes.Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness. 2009;2:111-148.
22. Nomi T.,Allensworth E. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association; 2011New Orleans, LA; 2011.
23. Oakes J.Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. 2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 2005:.
24. Page R. N.Lower track classroom: A curricular and cultural perspective. New York, NY: Teachers College Press; 1991:.
25. Powell A. G.,Farrar E.,Cohen D. K.The shopping mall high school: Winners and losers in the educational marketplace. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin; 1985:.
26. Rosenbaum J. E.If tracking is bad, is detracking better?.American Educator. 1999;23 (4): 24 47-29.
27. Rubin B. C.Detracking in context: How local constructions of ability complicate equity.Teachers College Record. 2008;110 (3): 646-699.
28. Schmidt W. H.,Wang H. C.,McKnight C. C.Curriculum coherence: An examination of U.S. mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective.Journal of Curriculum Studies. 2005;37:525-529.
29. Westbury I.Comparing American and Japanese achievement: Is the United States really a low achiever?.Educational Researcher. 1992;21:18-24.