Rigorous courses are an important resource, distributed within schools, that merit attention as a central determinant of student achievement and future outcomes (Cook and Evans, J Labor Econ. 18(4):729–754, 2000; Rose and Betts, Rev Econ Stat. 86(2):497–513, 2004). Yet, black students are less likely to be enrolled in advanced courses in general (ex. Darity et al. 2001; Klopfenstein, Contemp Econ Pol. 23(3):416–28, 2005) and specifically Algebra 1 in middle school (Riley 1997). Debate exists around the potential benefits or drawbacks for black students attending highly integrated schools relative to highly segregated schools. This study examines which school characteristics are associated with large disparities in black student enrollment in Algebra 1 relative to white student enrollment in Algebra 1 in the same middle schools in North Carolina. Of particular interest is the relationship between access and the percentage of white students in a school. The study finds that: (1) black students are underrepresented in Algebra 1 in essentially all schools in North Carolina; (2) the largest disparities occur in schools that are highly integrated while the disparities are reduced in schools that are either large majority white or large majority non-white; (3) schools with a larger share of white teachers are related to larger disparities between black and white students; (4) the marginal effects of racial composition on the relative disparity in enrollment are significantly larger for black females than black males.
AlexanderK.L., CookM.Curricula and coursework: a surprise ending to a familiar story.Am Sociol Rev.1982; 47(5): 626–40.
2.
AltonjiJ.G.The effects of high school curriculum on education and labor market outcomes.J Hum Resour.1995; 30(3): 409–38.
3.
AlwinD.F., OttoL.B.High school context effects on aspirations.Soc Educ.1977; 50(October): 259–73.
4.
AtandaR.Do gatekeeper courses expand education options? U.S. Department of Education Statistics in Brief NCES 1999–303.Washington D.C.: National Center of Education Statistics; 1999.
5.
CampbellS.For colored girls? The behavioral decisions that influence teacher recommendation into advanced courses for black girls.Review of Black Political Economy, current issue; 2011.
6.
CatsambisS.The path to math: gender and racial-ethnic differences in mathematics participation from middle school to high school.Soc Educ.1994; 67(3): 199–215.
7.
CookM.D., EvansW.N.Families or schools? Explaining the convergence in white and black academic performance.J Labor Econ.2000; 18(4): 729–54.
8.
DarityW.JrThe functionality of market-base discrimination.Int J Soc Econ.2001; 28: 980–6.
9.
DarityW.Jr., CastellinoD., TysonK., CobbC., McMillenB.Increasing opportunity to learn via access to rigorous courses and programs: one strategy for closing the achievement gap for at-risk and ethnic minority students.North Carolina Department of Public Instruction; 2001.
10.
DietteT.M.The algebra obstacle: unequal access to rigorous courses in public schools. Working Paper; 2011.
11.
DietteTM., HamiltonD., GoldsmithA.H., DarityW.A.Jr.Educational attainment of blacks in the U.S. and the integration—segregation debate. Working Paper; 2011.
12.
FordD.Y.The underrepresentation of minority students in gifted education: problems and promises in recruitment and retention.J Spec Educ.1998; 32(1): 4–14.
13.
FrancisD.V.Sugar and spice and everything nice? Teacher perceptions of black girls in the classroom. Review of Black Political Economy, current issue; 2011.
14.
FryerR.G., LevittS.D.Understanding the black-white test score gap in the first 2 years of school.Rev Econ Stat.2004; 86(2): 447–64.
15.
GamoranA.Rank, performance, and mobility in elementary school grouping.Socio Q.1989; 30(1): 109–23.
16.
GaretM.S., DeLanyB.Students, courses, and stratification.Soc Educ.1988; 51(April): 61–77.
17.
GroggerJ.Does school quality explain the recent black/white wage trend?J Labor Econ.1996; 14(2): 231–53.
18.
HallerE.J.Pupil race and elementary school ability grouping: are teachers biased against black children?Am Educ Res J.1985; 22(4): 465–83.
19.
HallinanM.T.School differences in tracking structures and track assignments.J Res Adolese.1991; 1(3): 251–75.
20.
HallinanM.T., SorensenA.B.Student characteristics and assignment to ability groups: two conceptual formulations.Socio Q.1986; 27(1): 1–14.
21.
HanushekE.A.The economics of schooling: production and efficiency in public schools.J Econ Lit.1986; 24(3): 1141–77.
22.
HanushekE.A.The failure of input-based schooling policies.Econ J.2003; 113(February): F64–98.
23.
HanushekE.A., KainJ.F., RivkinS.G.New evidence about brown v. board of education: the complex effects of school racial composition on achievement.J Labor Econ.2009; 27(3): 349–83.
24.
HawleyW.D., ReadyT., editors. Measuring access to learning opportunities.Washington D.C.: The National Academies Press; 2003.
25.
HeynsB.Social selection and stratification within schools.Am J Sociol.1974; 79(6): 1434–51.
26.
JencksC., PhillipsM.The black-white test score gap: an introduction, Ch.1. In: JencksC., PhillipsM., editors. The black-white test score gap.Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution; 1998. p. 1–51.
27.
JonesJ.D., VanfossenB.E., EnsmingerM.E.Individual and organizational predictors of high school track placement.Soc Educ.1995; 68(4): 287–300.
28.
KellyS.Do increased levels of parental involvement account for social class differences in track placement?Soc Sci Res.2004; 33: 626–59.
29.
KellyS.The black-white gap in mathematics course taking.Soc Educ.2009; 82(January): 47–69.
30.
KiferE.Opportunities, talents, and participation, Ch.11. In: BursteinL., editor. The IEA study of mathematics III: student growth and classroom processes.Oxford: Pergamon; 1993. p. 279–307.
31.
KlopfensteinK.Beyond test scores: the impact of black teacher role models on rigorous math taking.Contemp Econ Pol.2005; 23(3): 416–28.
32.
KruegerA.B.Economic considerations and class size.Econ J.2003; 113(February): F34–63.
33.
LeeV.E., EkstromR.B.Student access to guidance counseling in high school.Am Educ Res J.1987; 24(2): 287–310.
34.
LeeV.E., BrykA.S.Curriculum tracking as mediating the social distribution of high school achievement.Soc Educ.1988; 61(April): 78–94.
35.
LevineP.B., ZimmermanD.J.The benefit of additional high-school math and science classes for young men and women.J Bus Econ Stat.1995; 13(2): 137–49.
36.
LucasS.R.Effectively maintained inequality: education transition, track mobility, and social background effects.Am J Sociol.2001; 106(6): 1642–90.
37.
LucasS.R.Tracking inequality: stratification and mobility in American high schools.New York: Teachers College Press;1999.
38.
McKnightC.C., CrosswhiteF.J., DosseyJ.A., KiferE., SwaffordJ.O., TraversK.J.. The underachieving curriculum: assessing U.S. school mathematics from an international perspective.Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Company; 1987.
39.
MurnaneR.J., WillettJ.B., LevyF.The growing importance of cognitive skills in wage determination.Rev Econ Stat.1995; 77(2): 251–66.
40.
OakesJ.Keeping track: how schools structure inequality.New Haven: Yale University Press; 1985.
41.
OakesJ.Two cities’ tracking and with-in school segregation.Teachers Coll Rec.1995; 96(4): 681–91.
42.
OrfieldG., LeeC.Why segregation matters: poverty and educational inequality.Cambridge: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University; 2005.
43.
RehbergR.A., RosenthalE.R.Class and merit in the American high school: an assessment of the revisionist and meritocratic arguments.New York: Longman;1978.
44.
RileyR.W.“Mathematics Equals Opportunity,” White Paper prepared for U.S. Secretary of Education.Washington D.C: U.S. Department of Education; 1997.
45.
RobitailleD.E.Characteristics of schools, teachers, and students, Ch.3. In: BursteinL., editor. The IEA study of mathematics III: student growth and classroom processes.Oxford: Pergamon; 1993. p. 29–58.
46.
RoseH., BettsJ.R.The effect of high school courses on earnings.Rev Econ Stat.2004; 86(2): 497–513.
47.
RosenbaumJ.E.Making inequality: the hidden curriculum of high school tracking.New York: Wiley;1976.
48.
RosenbaumJ.E.Social implications of educational grouping, Ch. 8. In: BerlinerD.C., editor. Review of educational research vol. 8.Washington: American Educational Research Association; 1980. p. 361–401.
49.
StevensonD.L., SchillerK.S., SchneiderB.Sequences of opportunities for learning.Soc Educ.1994; 67(3): 184–98.
50.
UseemE.L.Student selection into course sequences in mathematics: the impact of parental involvement and school policies.J Res Adolesc.1991; 1(3): 231–50.
51.
UseemE.L.Getting on the fast track in mathematics: school organizational influences on math track assignments.Am J Educ.1992a; 100(3): 325–53.
52.
UseemE.L.Middle schools and math groups: parents’ involvement in children's placement.Soc Educ.1992b; 65(4): 263–79.
53.
UsiskinZ.Why elementary algebra can, should, and must be an eighth-grade course for average students.Math Teach.1987; 80(6): 428–38.
