The Role of Schooling in Perpetuating Educational Inequality: An International Perspective

Educational Researcher

Volumn 44, Issue 7, 2015, Pages 371-386

  Schmidt, William H ^a   Burroughs, Nathan A ^a   Zoido, Pablo ^b   Houang, Richard T ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b OECD   (France)

Author keywords

comparative education; curriculum; equity; mathematics education; mixed methods; social class

Indexed keywords

EID: 84944038791     PISSN: 0013189X     EISSN: 1935102X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0013189X15603982     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. J.AbediJ.Herman (2010). Assessing English language learners’ opportunity to learn mathematics: Issues and limitations. Teachers College Record, 112(3), 723–746.
2. A.Ammermuller (2005). Educational opportunities and the role of institutions (Discussion paper No. 05-44). Mannheim, Germany: Center for European Economic Research.
3. D.BoydP.L.GrossmanH.LankfordS.LoebJ.Wyckoff (2009). Teacher preparation and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 416– 440.
4. J.BrownK.SchillerS.RoeyR.PerkingsW.SchmidtR.Houang (2013). Algebra I and geometry curriculum (NCES 2013-451). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
5. M.CarnoyR.Rothstein (2013). What do international tests really show about U.S. student performance?Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
6. J.B.Carroll (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64(8), 723–733.
7. O.CausaC.Chapuis (2009). Equity in student achievement across countries: An investigation of the role of policies (Working Papers No. 708). Paris, France: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
8. A.K.Chmielewski (2014). An international comparison of achievement inequality in within- and between-school tracking systems. American Journal of Education, 120(3), 293–324.
9. A.ChudgarT.F.Luschei (2009). National income, income inequality, and the importance of schools: A hierarchical cross-national comparison. American Educational Research, 46, 626–658.
10. L.S.CoganW.H.SchmidtD.E.Wiley (2001). Who takes what mathematics and in which track? Using TIMSS to characterize U.S. students’ eighth grade mathematics learning opportunities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 323–341.
11. M.Corak (2013). Inequality from generation to generation: The United States in comparison. In R.Rycroft (Ed.), The economics of inequality, poverty, and discrimination in the 21st century (pp. 107–126). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
12. A.C.D’Addio (2007). Intergenerational transmission of advantage: Mobility or immobility across generations?A review of the evidence for OECD countries (OECD Social, Employment, and Migration Working Papers No. 52). Paris, France: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
13. X.DumayV.Dupriez (2007). Accounting for class effect using the 2003 eighth-grade database: Net effect of group composition, net effect of class process, and joint effect. School Effectiveness and Improvement, 18, 383–408.
14. V.DupriezX.Dumay (2006). Inequalities in school systems: Effect of school structure or of society structure?Comparative Education, 42, 243–260.
15. M.Duru-BellatB.Suchaut (2005). Organisation and context, efficiency and equity of educational systems: What PISA tells us. European Educational Research Journal, 4(3), 181–194.
16. A.FernaldV.A.MarchmanA.Weisleder (2013). SES differences in language processing skill and vocabulary are evident at 18 months. Developmental Science, 16(2), 234–248.
17. T.FuchsL.Woessman (2007). What accounts for international differences in student performance? A re-examination using PISA data. Empirical Economics, 32, 433–464.
18. A.GamoranA.PorterJ.SmithsonP.White (1997). Upgrading high school mathematics instruction: Improving learning opportunities for low-achieving, low-income youth. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(4), 325–338.
19. E.A.HanushekL.Woessman (2005). Does educational tracking affect performance and inequality? Difference-in-differences evidence across countries (NBER Working Paper 11124). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
20. D.Horn (2009). Age of selection counts: A cross-country analysis of educational institutions. Educational Research and Evaluation, 15(4), 343–366.
21. N.KaushalK.MagnusonJ.Waldfogel (2011). How is family income related to investments in children’s learning? In G.J.DuncanR.J.Murnane (Eds.), Wither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances (pp. 187–206). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
22. J.LenkeitD.H.Caro (2014). Performance status and change: Measuring education systems effectiveness with data from PISA 2000–2009. Educational Research and Evaluation, 20(2), 146–174.
23. H.Levin (2007). On the relationship between poverty and curriculum. North Carolina Law Review, 85, 1381–1418.
24. G.N.MarksJ.CreswellJ.Ainley (2006). Explaining socioeconomic inequalities in student achievement: The role of home and school factors. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(2), 105–128.
25. L.M.McDonnell (1995). Opportunity to learn as a research concept and a policy instrument. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(3), 305–322.
26. R.J.Mislevy (1991). Randomization-based inference about latent variables from complex samples. Psychometrika, 56, 177–196.
27. G.Montt (2011). Cross-national differences in educational achievement inequality. Sociology of Education, 84, 49–68.
28. J.Oakes (1985). Keeping track: How school structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
29. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014). PISA 2012 results: What students know and can do. Student performance in mathematics, reading and science (Vol. 1, rev. ed.). Paris, France: Author.
30. S.ReardonA.K.Chmielewski (2012, May). Patterns of cross-national variation in the association between income and achievement. Paper presented at the Income, Inequality, and Educational Success: New Evidence About Socioeconomic Outcomes Conference, Stanford, CA.
31. E.Reeves (2012). The effects of opportunity to learn, family socioeconomic status, and friends on the rural math achievement gap in high school. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(7), 887–907.
32. B.RowanR.CorrentiR.Miller (2002). What large scale, survey research tells us about teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the prospects study of elementary schools (Research Report Series RR-051). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
33. R.SchlichtI.Stadelmann-SteffenM.Freitag (2010). Educational inequality in the EU. European Union Politics, 11, 29–59.
34. W.H.Schmidt (2009). Exploring the relationship between content coverage and achievement: Unpacking the meaning of tracking in eighth grade mathematics. East Lansing: Michigan State University, Educational Policy Center.
35. W.H.SchmidtN.A.Burroughs (2013). Opening the black box: Prospects for using international large-scale assessments to explore classroom effects. Research in Comparative and International Education, 8(3), 236–248.
36. W.H.SchmidtN.A.BurroughsR.T.Houang (2012, May). Examining the relationship between two types of SES gaps: Curriculum and achievement. Paper presented at the Income, Inequality, and Educational Success: New Evidence About Socioeconomic Outcomes Conference, Stanford, CA.
37. W.H.SchmidtL.S.CoganR.T.HouangC.C.McKnight (2011). Content coverage differences across states/districts: A persisting challenge for U.S. educational policy. American Journal of Education, 117(3), 399–427.
38. W.H.SchmidtL.S.CoganP.Zoido (2014). The role that formal mathematics plays in college- and career-readiness: Evidence from PISA 2012. Manuscript submitted for publication.
39. W.H.SchmidtC.C.McKnight (2012). Inequality for all: The challenge of unequal opportunity in American schools. New York, NY: Teachers College.
40. W.H.SchmidtC.C.McKnightL.S.CoganP.M.JakwerthR.T.Houang (1999). Facing the consequences: Using TIMSS for a closer look at U.S. mathematics and science education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
41. W.H.SchmidtC.C.McKnightR.T.HouangH.A.WangD.E.WileyL.S.CoganR.G.Wolfe (2001). Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum and learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
42. W.H.SchmidtC.C.McKnightG.A.ValverdeR.T.HouangD.E.Wiley (1997). Many visions, many aims volume 1: A cross-national investigation of curricular intentions in school mathematics. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
43. W.H.SchmidtP.ZoidoL.S.Cogan (2013). Schooling matters: Opportunity to learn in PISA 2012 (OECD Education Working Papers No. 95). Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
44. G.SchutzH.W.UrsprungL.Woessman (2008). Educational policy and equality of opportunity. KYKLOS International Review for Social Sciences, 61(2), 279–308.
45. S.SousaD.J.Armor (2010). Impact of family vs. school factors on cross-national disparities in academic achievement: Evidence from the 2006 PISA survey (Research Paper No. 2010-25). Arlington, VA: George Mason University, School of Public Policy.
46. V.Vandenberghe (2006). Achievement effectiveness and equity: The role of tracking, grade repetition, and inter-school segregation. Applied Economics Letters, 13, 685–693.
47. A.Wang (2010). Optimizing early mathematics experiences for children from low-income families: A study on opportunity to learn mathematics. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37, 295–302.
48. J.D.Willms (2010). School composition and contextual effects on student outcomes. Teachers College Record, 112, 1008–1037.