Algebra for all: California's Eighth-grade algebra initiative as constrained curricula

Teachers College Record

Volumn 116, Issue 8, 2014, Pages

  Domina, Thurston ^a   Penner, Andrew M ^a   Penner, Emily K ^a   Conley, Annemarie ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84905996501     PISSN: 01614681     EISSN: 14679620     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Allensworth, E., Nomi, T., Montgomery, N., & Lee, V. E. (2009). College preparatory curriculum for all: Academic consequences of requiring Algebra and English I for ninth graders in Chicago. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31, 367-391.
2. Argys, L. M., Rees, D. I., & Brewer, D. J. (1996). Detracking America's schools: Equity at zero cost? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 15, 623-645.
3. Attewell, P., & Domina, T. (2008). Raising the bar: Curricular intensity and academic performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(1), 51-71.
4. Betts, J. R., & Shkolnik, J. L. (2000). The effects of ability grouping on student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 19, 1-15.
5. Burris, C. B., Heubert, J. P, & Levin, H. M. (2006). Accelerating mathematics achievement using heterogeneous grouping. American Educational Research Journal, 43(1), 137-154.
6. Burris, C. C., Wiley, E., Welner, K. G., & Murphy, J. (2008). Accountability, rigor, and detracking: Achievement effects of embracing a challenging curriculum as a universal good for all students. Teachers College Record, 110(3), 571-607
7. Center on Education Policy. (2009). State high school exit exams: Trends in test programs, alternate pathways, and pass rates. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED513306.pdf
8. Chaney, B., Burgdorf, K., & Atash, N. (1997). Influencing achievement through high school graduation requirements. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(3), 229-244.
9. Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2012). The aftermath of accelerating algebra: Evidence from a district policy initiative (Working Paper 69, pp. 1-47). Washington, DC: National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research. Available at http://www.caldercenter.org
10. Clune, W. H., & White, P. A. (1992). 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, 14(1), 2-20.
11. Darling-Hammond, L., & Berry, B. (1988). The evolution of teacher policy. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.
12. Domina, T., & Saldana, J. (2012). Does raising the bar level the playing field? Mathematics curricular intensification and inequality in American high schools, 1982-2004. American Educational Research Journal, 49(4), 685-708.
13. Figlio, D. N., & Page, M. E. (2002). School choice and the distributional effects of ability grouping: Does separation increase inequality? Journal of Urban Economics, 51, 497-514.
14. Gamoran, A. (1992). The variable effects of high school tracking. American Sociological Review, 57, 812-828.
15. Gamoran, A. (1996). Curriculum standardization and equality of opportunity in Scottish education: 1984-90. Sociology of Education, 69, 1-21.
16. Gamoran, A., & Hannigan, E. C. (2000). Algebra for everyone? Benefits of collegepreparatory mathematics for students with diverse abilities in early secondary school. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22, 241-254.
17. Gamoran, A., & Mare, R. D. (1989). Secondary school tracking and educational inequality: Compensation, reinforcement, or neutrality. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 1146-1183
18. Gamoran, A., Nystrand, M., Berends, M., & LePore, P. C. (1995). An organizational analysis of the effects of ability grouping. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 687-715
19. Hallinan, M. T. (1994). Tracking: From theory to practice. Sociology of Education, 67, 79-84.
20. Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., Markman, J. B., & Rivkin, S. G. (2003). Does peer ability affect student achievement? Journal of Applied Econometrics, 18, 527-544.
21. Hoffer, T. (1997). High school graduation requirements: Effects on dropping out and student achievement. Teachers College Record, 98, 584-607.
22. HumRRO. (2012). Independent Evaluation of the California High School Exit Examination: 2012 Evaluation. Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization. Retreived from: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/hs/documents/cahsee2012evalrpt.pdf
23. Kelly, S. (2007). The contours of tracking in North Carolina. The High School Journal, 90, 15-31.
24. Lee, V. E. (1993). Educational choice: The stratifying effects of selecting schools and courses. Educational Policy, 7, 125-148.
25. Lee, V. E., Croninger, R. G., & Smith, J. B. (1997). Course-taking, equity, and mathematics learning: Testing the constrained curriculum hypothesis in U.S. secondary schools. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 99-121.
26. Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1995). Effects of high school restructuring and size on gains in achievement and engagement for early secondary school students. Sociology of Education, 68(4), 241-270.
27. Loveless, T. (1999). The tracking wars: State reform meets school policy. Harrisonburg, VA: R.R. Donnelley and Sons.
28. Lucas, S. R. (1999). Tracking inequality: Stratification and mobility in American high schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
29. Moses, R. P., & Cobb, C. E. (2001). Radical equations: Civil rights from Mississippi to the Algebra Project. Boston: Beacon Press.
30. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: Author.
31. Nomi, T. (2012). The unintended consequences of an algebra-for-all policy on high-skill students: The effects on instructional organization and students' academic outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(4), 489-505.
32. Nomi, T., & Allensworth, E. (2012). Sorting and supporting: Why double-dose algebra led to better test scores but more course failures. American Educational Research Journal. Advance online publication.
33. Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
34. Rosenbaum, J. E. (1999). If tracking is bad, is detracking better? American Educator, 23, 24-29.
35. Rosin, M., Barondess, H., & Leichty, J. (2009). Algebra policy in California: Great expectations and serious challenges. EdSource Report. Retrieved from http://www.noycefdn.org/documents/math/EdSourceReport0609.pdf
36. Schiller, K. S., & Muller, C. (2003). Raising the bar and equity? Effects of high school graduation requirements and accountability practices on students' mathematics course taking. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(3), 299-318.
37. Slavin, R. E. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A bestevidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60, 471-499.
38. Stein, M. K., Kaufman, J. H., Sherman, M., & Hillen, A. F. (2011). Algebra: A challenge at the crossroads of policy and practice. Review of Educational Research, 81, 453-492.
39. Sørenson, A. B. (1970). Organizational differentiation of students and educational opportunity. Sociology of Education, 43, 355-376.
40. Williams, R. (2006). Generalized ordered logit/partial proportional odds models for ordinal dependent variables. Stata Journal, 6, 58-82.
41. Wilson, B. L., & Rossman, G. B. (1993). Mandating academic excellence: High school responses to state curriculum reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
42. Wurman, Z., & Evers, B. (2010). National standards would harm math curriculum. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/30/ED5Q1ELG9S.DTL