Aiming high and falling short: California’s eighth-grade algebra-for-all effort

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis

Volumn 37, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 275-295

  Domina, Thurston ^a   McEachin, Andrew ^b   Penner, Andrew ^a   Penner, Emily ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Contextual effects; Curricular policy; Mathematics education

Indexed keywords

EID: 84959902286     PISSN: 01623737     EISSN: 19351062     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0162373714543685     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the toolbox: Academic intensity, attendance patterns and bachelor's degree attainment. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Attewell, P., & Domina, T. (2008). Raising the bar: Curricular intensity and academic performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 51-71.
5. Becker, D. E., Watters, C., & Sacramento, C. A. (2008). Independent evaluation of the California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) fourth biennial report (FR-08-12). Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization. Retrieved from http://www. cde. ca. gov/ta/tg/hs/documents/fourthbiennialrpt. pdf.
6. Becker, D. E., Wise, L. L., Mardoin, M. M., & Watters, C. (2012). Independent evaluation of the California High School Exit Examination: 2012 biennial report (FR-11-82). Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization.
7. Becker, D. E., Wise, L. L., & Watters, C. (2010). Independent evaluation of the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) 2010 biennial report (FR-10-01). Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization.
8. Carraher, D. W., & Schliemann, A. D. (2007). Early algebra. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 669-706). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
9. Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2012a). The aftermath of accelerating algebra: Evidence from a district policy initiative (National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research, Working Paper 69). Available from www. caldercenter. org.
10. Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2012b). Algebra for 8th graders: Evidence on its effects from 10 North Carolina districts (No. w18649). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
11. Dee, T. S., & Jacob, B. (2011). The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30, 418-446.
12. Domina, T. (2014). The link between middle school mathematics course placement and achievement. Child Development. Advance online publication. doi: 10. 1111/cdev. 12255.
13. Domina, T., Penner, A., Penner, E., & Conley, A. M. (2014). Algebra for all: California's 8th grade algebra initiative as constrained curricula. Teachers College Record, 116(8). Retrieved from http://www. tcrecord. org/Content. asp?ContentId=17511.
14. 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, 685-708.
15. 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.
16. Gamoran, A., Porter, A. C., Smithson, J., & White, P. A. (1997). Upgrading high school mathematics instruction: Improving learning opportunities for low-achieving, low-income youth. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 325-338.
17. Goldin, C. D., & Katz, L. F. (2008). The race between education and technology. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
18. Gonzalez, P., Williams, T., Jocelyn, L., Roey, S., Kastberg, D., & Brenwald, S. (2008). Highlights from TIMSS 2007: Mathematics and science achievement of U. S. fourth and eighth-grade students in an international context. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
19. Heppen, J. B., Walters, K., Clements, M., Faria, A., Tobey, C., Sorensen, N., & Culp, K. (2012). Access to Algebra I: The effects of online mathematics for grade 8 students (NCEE 2012-4021). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U. S. Department of Education.
20. Howe, R. (2005). Comments on NAEP algebra problems. Retrieved from http://www. brookings. edu/~/media/events/2005/9/14%20algebraic%20reasoning/howe_presentation. pdf.
21. Human Resource Research Organization. (2012). Independent evaluation of the California High School Exit Examination: 2012 evaluation. Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization. Retrieved from http://www. cde. ca. gov/ta/tg/hs/documents/cahsee2012evalrpt. pdf.
22. Liang, J., Heckman, P. E., & Abedi, J. (2012). What do the California Standards Test results reveal about the movement toward eighth-grade algebra for all? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34, 328-343.
23. Long, M. C., Conger, D., & Iatarola, P. (2012, April). Effects of high school course-taking on secondary and postsecondary success. American Educational Research Journal, 49, 285-322.
24. Loveless, T. (2008). The misplaced math student lost in eighth-grade algebra (The 2008 Brown Center Report on American Education). Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
25. McPartland, J. M., & Schneider, B. (1996). Opportunities to learn and student diversity: Prospects and pitfalls of a common core curriculum. Sociology of Education, 69, 66-81.
26. Nomi, T. (2012). 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, 34, 489-505.
27. Nomi, T., & Allensworth, E. (2009). "Double-dose" algebra as an alternative strategy to remediation: Effects on students' academic outcomes. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2, 111-148.
28. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2009). Learning mathematics for life: A perspective from PISA. Paris, France: Author.
29. Papke, L. E. (1994). Tax policy and urban development: Evidence from the Indiana enterprise zone program. Journal of Public Economics, 54, 37-49.
30. Porter, A. C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3-14.
31. Reardon, S. (2008). Thirteen ways of looking at the blackwhite test score gap (Stanford Institute for Research on Education Policy & Practice, Working Paper, 8). Retrieved from http://www. stanford. edu/group/irepp/cgi-bin/joomla/docman/thirteen-ways-of-looking-atthe-black-white-test-score-gap/download. html.
32. Rosin, M. S., Barondess, H., & Leichty, J. (2009). Algebra policy in California: Great expectations and serious challenges. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.
33. Schmidt, W. H. (2012). At the precipice: The story of mathematics education in the United States. Peabody Journal of Education, 87, 133-156.
34. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Houang, R. T., Wang, H. C., Wiley, D. E., Cogan, L. S., & Wolfe, R. G. (2001). Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum and learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
35. 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.
36. Taylor, D. J. (2011). Outcomes of placing low performing eighth grade students in Algebra content courses (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3474480).
37. Vogel, C. (2008). Algebra: Changing the equation. District Administration, 44, 34-40.
38. Wise, L. L., Becker, D. S., Harris, C. D., Taylor, L. R., Johnstone, C. J., Miller, N. A.,. Moody, R. (2006). Independent evaluation of the California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE): Third biennial report. Sacramento: California Department of Education.
39. Wise, L. L., Harris, C. D., Koger, L. E., Bacci, E. D., Ford, J. P., Brown, D. G.,. Coumbe, K. L. (2004). Independent evasluation of the California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE): Second biennial report (FR-04-01). Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization.
40. Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
41. Wurman, Z., & Evers, W. M. (2011, February 09). New education dashboard: Less rigorous, less meaningful. Education Week, 30(20). Retrieved from http://www. edweek. org/ew/articles/2011/01/28/20evers. h30. html.
42. Zimmer, R. W., & Buddin, R. (2006). Charter school performance in two large urban districts. Journal of Urban Economics, 60, 307-326.
43. Zimmer, R. W., & Toma, E. F. (2000). Peer effects in private and public schools across countries. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 19, 75-92.