Leaving No Child behind Yet Allowing None Too Far Ahead: Ensuring (In)Equity in Mathematics Education through the Science of Measurement and Instruction
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online June, 2008
Leaving No Child behind Yet Allowing None Too Far Ahead: Ensuring (In)Equity in Mathematics Education through the Science of Measurement and Instruction
For the past century, mathematics education in the United States has been effective at producing outcomes mirroring society's historical inequities. The enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001 was intended to address these differential educational outcomes. Given the scope of this legislation's impact on the way in which states, districts, and schools evaluate mathematics learning and conceptualize reforms in the teaching of mathematics, it is critical to examine the possible effects this may have on how mathematical proficiency is determined and distributed.
Purpose/Focus of Study
This inquiry raises questions about the manner in which the No Child Left Behind Act aims to improve mathematics education through an increased reliance on “objective” science. Specifically, the argument put forth here is that the policies of the No Child Left Behind Act leverage and intensify the “dividing practices” instituted in the early 20th century as a means of justifying the differential stratification of students in schools, thereby making equitable educational outcomes less likely than not. The questions guiding this inquiry are: How did these dividing practices first develop? What are the taken-for-granted assumptions under which they operate? How might technologies related to these practices, given renewed status due to the requirements of the NCLB Act, impact mathematics education?
Research Design
This inquiry takes the format of an analytic essay, drawing on both a historical perspective of efforts to improve education in the United States through a reliance on scientific methods, and an examination of recent evidence as to how the No Child Left Behind legislation's policies are bring implemented in relation to the assessment and teaching of mathematics.
Conclusions/Recommendations
Although the intent of the No Child Left Behind legislation is to identify schools in which students are not being educated well and to compel improvement, its approach to doing so is built on a model from which long-standing disparities were constructed in the first place. The use of high-stakes standardized testing and direct instruction (DI) methods of teaching—both likely effects of the policies of the NCLB Act—reify the idea that mathematics is something to be put into students’ heads, apart from their lived experiences and daily lives. This approach to mathematics education provides a rationale for students’ (continued) stratification within an “objective” system of standardized testing and instruction. When considering reforms that aim to reduce inequities in educational outcomes, particularly in mathematics, forms of assessment and instruction must be developed and promoted that get away from the divisiveness of the traditional truth games and move toward a focus on students making sense of mathematics in ways that are meaningful, flexible, and connected to their sense of self.
BereiterC., and KurlandM. (1981). A constructive look at Follow Through results. Interchange, 12(1), 1—22.
5.
BlackP., HarrisonC., LeeC., MarshallB., and WiliamD. (2002). Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. London: King's College.
6.
BlankeD. (2002). The 1910s. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
7.
BoalerJ. (1997). Experiencing school mathematics: Teaching styles, sex and setting. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
8.
BoalerJ. (2006). How a detracked mathematics approach promoted respect, responsibility, and high achievement. Theory Into Practice, 45, 40—46.
9.
Booher-JenningsJ. (2005). Below the bubble: “Educational triage” and the Texas accountability system. American Educational Research Journal42, 231—268.
10.
BrighamC. C. (1923). A study of American intelligence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
CampbellP. F. (1996). Empowering children and teachers in the elementary mathematics classrooms of urban schools. Urban Education, 30, 449—475.
14.
Carnegie Commission on Science Technology Government. (1991). In the national interest: The federal government in the reform of K–12 math and science education. New York: Author.
15.
CarsonJ. (2004). The science of merit and the merit of science: Mental order and social order in early twentieth-century France and America. In and and JasanoffS. (Ed.), States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order (pp. 181—205). New York: Routledge.
16.
CobbP., WoodT., YackelE., and McNealB. (1992). Characteristics of classroom mathematics traditions: An interactional analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 573—604.
17.
CodeL. (1995). Who cares? The poverty of objectivism for a moral epistemology. In. and and MegillA. (Ed.), Rethinking objectivity (pp. 179—195). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
CorwinT. (Speaker). (2003, March 21). The No Child Left Behind Act: Where are we now? Where are we going?Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved June 30, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/print/news/speeches/2003/03/03082003.html
Darling-HammondL. (2006). Standards, assessments, and educational policy: In pursuit of genuine accountability (8th Annual William H. Angoff Memorial Lecture). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
22.
Darling-HammondL., and WiseA. E. (1985). Beyond standardization: State standards and school improvement. The Elementary School Journal, 85, 315—336.
DiamondJ. B., and SpillaneJ. P. (2004). High-stakes accountability in urban elementary schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality?Teachers College Record, 106, 1145—1176.
25.
DiazA., and LordJ. (2005). Focusing on student performance through accountability. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.
Dolan DNA Learning Center, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. (2003). Image archive on the American eugenics movement. Retrieved October 10, 2004, from http://www.eugenic-sarchive.org/eugenics/list3.pl
28.
DusterT. (2003). Backdoor to eugenics (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
29.
EllisM. W., and BerryR. Q. (2005). The paradigm shift in mathematics education: Explanations and implications of reforming conceptions of teaching and learning. The Mathematics Educator, 15(1), 7—17.
30.
EngelmannS., and CarnineD. (1991). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications. Eugene, OR: ADI Press.
31.
FeyJ. (1979). Mathematics teaching today: Perspectives from three national surveys. Mathematics Teacher, 72, 490—504.
32.
FinnC., and RavitchD. (2006, February 27). Basic instinct. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved July 16, 2006, from ProQuest Newsstand Database.
33.
FisherR. A. (1930). The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
34.
FoucaultM. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Pantheon. (Original work published 1969)
35.
FoucaultM. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Vintage Books. (Original work published 1975)
36.
FoucaultM. (1988). The ethic of care for the self as a practice of freedom (J. D. Gauthier, Trans.). In BernauerJ., and RasmussenD. (Eds.), The final Foucault (pp. 1—20). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37.
GallagherC. W. (2004). Turing the accountability tables: Ten progressive lessons from one “backward” state. Phi Delta Kappan, 85, 352—360.
38.
GaltonF. (1925). Hereditary genius. London: Macmillan. (Original work published 1892)
39.
GouldS. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: W. W. Norton.
40.
GrantM. (1916). The passing of the great race. New York: Scribner's.
41.
GrayP. (1999, January 11). Cursed by eugenics. Time, 84—85.
42.
HackingI. (1990). The taming of chance. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
43.
HakeR. R. (2005, March). Will the No Child Left Behind Act promote direct instruction of science? Paper presented at the American Physics Society Meeting, Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved July 11, 2006, from http://www.physics.indiana.edu/∼hake/WillNCLBPromoteDSI-3.pdf
44.
HaneyW. (2000). The myth of the Texas Miracle in education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(41). Retrieved July 2, 2006, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n41/
45.
HarawayD. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.
46.
HiebertJ. (2003). What research says about the NCTM standards. In KilpatrickJ., MartinW.G., and SchifterD. (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 5—23). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
47.
HunterR. C., and BarteeR. (2003). The achievement gap: Issues of competition, class, and race. Education and Urban Society, 35, 151—160.
KennedyM. M. (1999). Approximation to indicators of student outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 345—363.
50.
KnappM. S., AdelmanN. E., MarderC., McCollumH., NeedelsM. C., and PadilliaC.. (1995). Teaching for meaning in high poverty schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
51.
KnappM. S., and ShieldsP. M. (1990). Reconceiving academic instruction for the children of poverty. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 753—758.
52.
KumashiroK. (2001). “Posts” perspectives on anti-oppressive education in social studies, English, mathematics, and science classrooms. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 3—12.
53.
LinnR. L. (2001). A century of standardized testing: Controversies and pendulum swings. Educational Assessment, 7(1), 29—38.
54.
LinnR. L., BakerE. L., and BetebennerD. W. (2002). Accountability systems: Implications of requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Educational Researcher, 31(6), 3—16.
MadausG., ClarkeM., and O'LearyM. (2003). A century of standardized mathematics testing. In StanicG., and KilpatrickJ., A History of School Mathematics (Vol. 2, pp. 1311—1433). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
57.
MosesR. P., and CobbC. E. (2001). Radical equations: Math literacy and civil rights. Boston: Beacon Press.
58.
National Assessment Governing Board. (2004). Mathematics framework for the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: Author.
59.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
60.
National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century. (2000). Before it's too late. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
61.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
62.
National Research Council. (1989). Everybody counts: A report to the nation on the future of mathematics education. Washington, DC: Author.
63.
National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
NicholsS., and BerlinerD. (2005). The inevitable corruption of indicators and educators through high-stakes testing. Tempe: Arizona State University Education Policy Studies Laboratory. Retrieved June 30, 2006, from http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/EPRU/documents/EPSL-0503-101-EPRU.pdf
66.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2002).
67.
NoddingsN. (1998). Philosophy of education. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
OrfieldG., LosenD., WaldJ., and SwansonC. (2004). Losing our future: How minority youth are being left behind by the graduation rate crisis. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
72.
PaigeR. (Speaker). (2002, June 10). Remarks of the Honorable Roderick Paige at the Harvard Conference on Education and Accountability, Cambridge, MA. Retrieved July 27, 2006, from U.S. Department of Education Web site: http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/2002/06/061002.html
73.
PorterT. (1995). Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
74.
RousseauC., and TateW. F. (2003). No time like the present: Reflecting on equity in school mathematics. Theory Into Practice, 42, 210—216.
75.
SchoenfeldA. H. (2002). Making mathematics work for all children: Issues of standards, testing, and equity. Educational Researcher, 31(1), 13—25.
76.
SchoenfeldA. H. (2004). The math wars. Educational Policy, 18, 253—286.
77.
SeldenS. (2000). Eugenics and the social construction of merit, race, and disability. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32, 235—252.
78.
ShepardL. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4—14.
79.
SpellingsM. (Speaker). (2005, April 7). Raising achievement: A new path for No Child Left Behind. Retrieved July 28, 2006, from U.S. Department of Education Web site: http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/2005/04/04072005.html
80.
StiglerJ. W., and HiebertJ. (1997). Understanding and improving classroom mathematics instruction: An overview of the TIMSS video study. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 14—21. Retrieved August 15, 2006 from http://www.kiva.net/∼pdkintl/kappan/kstg9709.htm
81.
StiglerS. M. (1986). The history of statistics: The measurement of uncertainty before 1900. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
82.
StodolskyS. (1988). The subject matters: Classroom activity in math and social studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
83.
TateW. F. (1994). Race, retrenchment, and the reform of school mathematics. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 477—484.
84.
TateW. F. (2000). Summary: Some final thoughts on changing the faces of mathematics. In and and SecadaW.G. (Ed.), Changing the faces of mathematics: Perspectives on African Americans (pp. 201—207). Reston, VA: NCTM.
85.
TermanL. M., DicksonV. E., SutherlandA. H., FranzenR. H., TupperC. R., and FernlandG. (1922). Intelligence tests and school reorganization. Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: World Book Company.
86.
ThorndikeE. L. (1923). The psychology of algebra. New York: The Macmillan Company.
87.
TuckerW. H. (1994). The science and politics of racial research. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
88.
United States Department of Education. (2003). Proven methods: The facts about. math achievement. Retrieved on October 7, 2003, from U.S. Department of Education Web site: http://www.ed.gov/nclb/methods/math/math.pdf
89.
UrdanT. C., and ParisS. G. (1994). Teachers’ perceptions of standardized achievement tests. Educational Policy, 8, 137—156.
90.
WeissI. R., PasleyJ. D., SmithP. S., BanilowerE. R., and HeckD. C. (2003). Looking inside the classroom: A Study of K-12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Retrieved August 15, 2006, from http://www.horizon-research.com/insidetheclassroom/reports/looking/
91.
WhitehurstG. J. (Speaker). (2002, March 13). Statement before the House Subcommittee on Labor/Heath and Human Services/Education Appropriations. Retrieved October 12, 2003, from U.S. Department of Education Web site: http://www.ed.gov/print/news/speeches/2003/03/03132003a.html
92.
WhitehurstG. J. (Speaker). (2003, February 6). What we know from educational research: A summary. Plenary talk at the United States Department of Education Summit on Mathematics, Washington, DC. Retrieved March 4, 2006, from U.S. Department of Education Web site: http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/progs/mathscience/white-hurst.html
93.
WiliamD., BartholomewH., and ReayD. (2004). Assessment, learning, and identity. In ValeroP., and ZevenbergenR. (Eds.), Researching the socio-political dimensions of mathematics education: Issues of power in theory and methodology (pp. 43—61). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
94.
WoosterM. M. (2001). City Springs Elementary School. The American Enterprise, 12(1), 40—42.
95.
ZhangG. (2003, March). The implications of No Child Left Behind for North Carolina classrooms. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the North Carolina Association for Research in Education, Holly Springs, NC.
