This study investigates whether adequate yearly progress (AYP) status, locale, and sector—common variables used to judge the quality of schools—accurately signal true differences in instructional practices in high school mathematics and science. Using data from the High School Longitudinal Study (HSLS), we find the school-to-school variation in instructional practices to be minimal. Controlling for a variety of school and teacher characteristics, we find that there is no difference in the use of developmental instruction between schools that make AYP and schools that do not, urban and nonurban schools, and public and private schools.
AcockA. C. (2012). A gentle introduction to Stata (3rd rev. ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press.
2.
ArchambaultI.JanoszM.FalluJ.-S.PaganiL. S. (2009). Student engagement and its relationship with early high school dropout. Journal of Adolescence, 32, 651-670.
3.
BalfanzR.LegtersN.WestT. C.WeberL. M. (2007). Are NCLB’s measures, incentives, and improvement strategies the right ones for the nation’s low-performing high schools?American Educational Research Journal, 44, 559-593.
4.
BarrR.DreebenR. (1983). How schools work. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
5.
BidwellC. E.KasardaJ. D. (1980). Conceptualizing and measuring the effects of school and schooling. American Journal of Education, 88, 401-430.
6.
BlackS. E. (1999). Do better schools matter? Parental valuation of elementary education. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 577-599.
7.
BostonM. D.WilhelmA. G. (2017). Middle school mathematics instruction in instructionally focused urban districts. Urban Education, 52, 829-861.
8.
CarbonaroW. (2006). Public-private differences in achievement among kindergarten students: Differences in learning opportunities and student outcomes. American Journal of Education, 113(1), 31-65.
9.
CarbonaroW.CovayE. (2010). School sector and student achievement in the era of standards based reform. Sociology of Education, 82, 160-182.
ColemanJ. S.CampbellE. Q.HobsonC. J.McPartlandJ.MoodA. M.WeinfeldF. D.YorkR. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
12.
CubanL. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms, 1890-1990. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
13.
DowneyD. B.von HippelP. T.HughesM. (2008). Are “failing” schools really failing? Using seasonal comparison to evaluate school effectiveness. Sociology of Education, 81, 242-270.
14.
DunkinM. J.BiddleB. J. (1974). The study of teaching. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
15.
FiglioD. N.LucasM. E. (2004). What’s in a grade? School report cards and the housing market. The American Economic Review, 94, 591-604.
16.
FinnJ. D.ZimmerK. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In ChristensonS. L.ReschlyA. L.WylieC. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 97-131). New York, NY: Springer.
17.
GamoranA.CarbonaroW. J. (2002). High school English: A national portrait. The High School Journal, 86(2), 1-13.
18.
GamoranA.SecadaW. G.MarrettC. B. (2000). The organizational context of teaching and learning: Changing theoretical perspectives. In HallinanM. T. (Ed.), Handbook of the sociology of education (pp. 37-63). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic.
19.
GayG. (2014). Culturally responsive teaching principles, practices, and effects. In MilnerH. R.LomoteyK. (Eds.), Handbook of urban education (pp. 353-372). New York, NY: Routledge.
20.
GriffithsA.-J.LillesE.FurlongM. J.SidhwaJ. (2012). The relations of adolescent student engagement with troubling and high-risk behaviors. In ChristensonS. L.ReschlyA. L.WylieC. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 563-584). New York, NY: Springer.
21.
GuarinoC. M.HamiltonL. S.LockwoodJ. R.RathbunA. H. (2006). Teacher qualifications, instructional practices, and reading and mathematics gains of kindergartners (NCES 2006-031). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
22.
HamiltonL. S. (2003). Assessment as a policy tool. Review of Research in Education, 27, 25-68.
23.
HamiltonL. S. (2012). Measuring teaching quality using student achievement tests: Lessons from educator’s responses to No Child Left Behind. In KellyS. (Ed.), Assessing teacher quality: Understanding teacher effects on instruction and achievement (pp. 49-75). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
24.
HamiltonL. S.StecherB. M.MarshJ. A.McCombsJ. S.RobynA.RussellJ. L.. . . BarneyH. (2007). Standards-based accountability under No Child Left Behind: Experiences of teachers and administrators in three states. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
25.
HamiltonL. S.StecherB. M.YuanK. (2008). Standards-based reform in the United States: History, research, and future directions. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
26.
HillH. C.LubienskiS. T. (2007). Teachers’ mathematics knowledge for teaching and school context: A study of California teachers. Educational Policy, 21, 747-768.
27.
HolmeJ. J. (2002). Buying homes, buying schools: School choice and the social construction of school quality. Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), 177-205.
28.
HowardT. C.MilnerH. R. (2014). Teacher preparation for urban schools. In MilnerH. R.LomoteyK. (Eds.), Handbook of urban education (pp. 353-372). New York, NY: Routledge.
29.
IngelsS. J.PrattD. J.HergetD. R.BurnsL. J.DeverJ. A.OttemR.. . . LeinwandS. (2011). High-School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09). Base-year data file documentation (NCES 2011-328). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
30.
JacobsenR.SaultzA.SnyderJ. W. (2013). When accountability strategies collide: Do policy changes that raise accountability standards also erode public satisfaction?Educational Policy, 27, 360-389.
31.
KellyS. (2009). The Black-White gap in mathematics course taking. Sociology of Education, 82, 47-69.
32.
KellyS. (2010a). A crisis of authority in predominantly black schools?Teachers College Record, 112, 1247-1274.
33.
KellyS. (2010b). The prevalence of developmental instruction in public and Catholic schools. Teachers College Record, 112, 2405-2440.
34.
KellyS. (2012). Understanding teacher effects: Market versus process models of educational improvement. In KellyS. (Ed.), Assessing teacher quality: Understanding teacher effects on instruction and achievement (pp. 7-32.) New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
KimJ. S.SundermanG. L. (2005). Measuring academic proficiency under the No Child Left Behind Act: Implications for educational equity. Educational Researcher, 34(8), 3-13.
37.
KonstantopoulosS. (2012). Teacher effects: Past, present and future. In KellyS. (Ed.), Assessing teacher quality: Understanding teacher effects on instruction and achievement (pp. 33-48). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
38.
LankfordH.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 37-62.
39.
LubienskiC. A.LubienskiS. T. (2013). The public school advantage: Why public schools outperform private schools. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
40.
McCaffreyD. F.HamiltonL. S.StecherB. M.KleinS. P.BugliariD.RobynA. (2001). Interactions among instructional practices, curriculum, and student achievement: The case of standards-based high school mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32, 493-517.
41.
McCoachD. B.O’ConnellA. A.ReisS. M.LevittH. A. (2006). Growing readers: A hierarchical linear model of children’s reading growth during the first 2 years of school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 14-28.
42.
Measures of Effective Teaching Project. (2012a). Asking students about teaching: Student perception surveys and their implementation. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Measures of Effective Teaching Project. Retrieved from http://metproject.org/downloads/Asking_Students_Practitioner_Brief.pdf
43.
Measures of Effective Teaching Project. (2012b). Gathering feedback for teaching: Combining high-quality observations with student surveys and achievement gains. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Measures of Effective Teaching Project. Retrieved from http://www.metproject.org/downloads/MET_Gathering_Feedback_Research_Paper.pdf
44.
MetzM. H. (1978). Classrooms and corridors: The crisis of authority in desegregated secondary schools. Berkeley: University of California Press.
45.
MeyerJ. W.RowanB. (1978). The structure of educational organizations. In MeyerM. W. (Ed.), Environments and organizations (pp. 78-110). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
46.
MilnerH. R. (2012). But what is urban education?Urban Education, 47, 556-561.
47.
MilnerH. R. (2013). Scripted and narrowed curriculum reform in urban schools. Urban Education, 48, 163-170.
48.
MilnerH. R.TenoreF. B. (2010). Classroom management in diverse classrooms. Urban Education, 45, 560-603.
49.
NewmannF. M.MarksH. M.GamoranA. (1996). Authentic pedagogy and student performance. American Journal of Education, 104, 280-312.
50.
NyeB.KonstantopoulosS.HedgesL. V. (2004). How large are teacher effects?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 237-257.
51.
PaceJ. L.HemmingsA. (2007). Understanding authority in classrooms: A review of theory, ideology and research. Review of Educational Research, 77, 4-27.
52.
Rabe-HeskethS.SkrondalA. (2012). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using Stata (Vol. 1). College Station, TX: Stata Press.
53.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
54.
RaudenbushS. W.RowanB.CheongY. F. (1993). Higher order instructional goals in secondary schools: Class, teacher, and school influences. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 523-553.
55.
RockoffJ. E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data. The American Economic Review, 94, 247-252.
56.
RoordaD. L.KoomenH. M. Y.SpiltJ. L.OortF. J. (2011). The influence of affective teacher-student relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic approach. Review of Educational Research, 81, 493-529.
57.
RumbergerR. W.RotermundS. (2012). The relationship between engagement and high school dropout. In ChristensonS. L.ReschlyA. L.WylieC. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 491-513). New York, NY: Springer.
58.
ScheerensJ.BoskerR. J. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. New York, NY: Elsevier Science.
59.
ShernoffD. J. (2013). Optimal learning environments to promote student engagement. New York, NY: Springer.
StecherB. M.BarronS.KaganoffT.GoodwinJ. (1998). The effects of standards-based assessment on classroom practices: Results of the 1996-97 RAND survey of Kentucky teachers of mathematics and writing. (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 482) Los Angeles: University of California, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing.
62.
Von SeckerC. E.LissitzR. W. (1999). Estimating the impact of instructional practices on student achievement in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 1110-1126.
63.
WayneA. J.YoungsP. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A review. Review of Educational Research, 73, 89-122.
64.
WeickK. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1-19.
65.
WeisL.CipolloneK.JenkinsH. (2014). Class warfare: Class, race, and college admissions in top-tier secondary schools. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
66.
YettickH. (2016). Information is bliss: Information use by school choice participants in Denver. Urban Education, 51, 859-890.
