Prior research has investigated differences in course-taking patterns and achievement growth in public and Catholic schools, but the nature of instruction in Catholic schools is currently understudied. One important dimension of instruction that impacts student engagement is the prevalence of developmental or student-centered instruction.
Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study
The overall goal of the present study was to investigate whether student and teacher reports of developmental instruction differ in public and Catholic schools. In addition, is a teacher's approach to instruction shaped by the social context of the school, as measured by the teacher's perception of her students? Finally, can differences in the social context of schools explain reported differences in the prevalence of developmental instruction in public and Catholic schools?
Population, Participants/Subjects
Data for this analysis came from the Chicago School Study, a large longitudinal study of public and Catholic schools in the Chicago area.
Research Design
The prevalence of developmental instruction in public and Catholic schools was analyzed using three student-reported measures of developmental instruction and one teacher-reported measure. Multilevel regression models were used to investigate the relationship between four potential predictors of developmental instruction—teachers’ perceptions of challenging instruction, teachers’ expectations of students’ future educational attainment, teachers’ knowledge of their students’ cultural backgrounds, and principals’ endorsement of developmental instruction—and teacher reports of developmental instruction.
Conclusions
Catholic school teachers and students were less likely to report the use of developmental instruction than public school teachers and students. This finding was particularly striking given Catholic school teachers’ high expectations for their students’ future educational attainments, a factor that was associated with an increased likelihood of reporting developmental methods in the classroom.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlexanderK. A., & PallasA.M. (1985). School sector and cognitive performance: When is a little a little?Sociology of Education, 58, 115-127.
2.
BempechatJ., BoulayB. A., PiergrossS. C., & WenkK. A. (2008).Beyond the rhetoric: Understanding achievement and motivation in Catholic school students.Education and Urban Society, 40, 167–178.
3.
BempechatJ., Drago-SeversonE., & BoulayB. A. (2002).Attributions for success and failure in mathematics: A comparative study of Catholic and public school students.Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice, 5, 357–372.
4.
BrykA. S., LeeV.E., & HollandP.B. (1993). Catholic schools and the common good. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5.
CarbonaroW. (2006). Student learning: Sector differences in achievement gains across school years and during the summer. In HallinanM. (Ed.), School sector and student outcomes (pp. 153–180). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
6.
CaughlanS., & KellyS. (2004).Bridging methodological gaps: Instructional and institutional effects of tracking in two English classes.Research in the Teaching of English, 39, 20–62.
ColemanJ. S., HofferT., & KilgoreS. B. (1982). High school achievement: Public, Catholic, and private schools compared. New York: Basic Books.
9.
ConnellR. W., AshendenD.J., KesslerS., & DowsettG. W. (1982). Making the difference: Schools, families, and social division. Sydney, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
10.
Consortium on Chicago School Research. (2004). Public Use Data Set: 2001 Survey of Students and Teachers User's Manual. Chicago.
CubanL. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms, 1890-1990. New York: Teachers College Press.
13.
DelpitL. (1995). Other people's children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: The New Press.
14.
FredericksJ. A., BlumenfeldP. C. & ParisA. H. (2004).School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence.Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109.
15.
GamoranA. (1996).Student achievement in public magnet, public comprehensive, and private city high schools.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18, 1–18.
16.
GamoranA., & KellyS. (2003). Tracking, instruction, and unequal literacy in secondary school English. In HallinanM. T., GamoranA., KubitschekW. & LovelessT. (Eds.), Stability and change in American education: Structure, processes and outcomes (pp. 109-126). Clinton Corners, NY: Eliot Werner Publications.
17.
GamoranA., & NystrandM. (1992). Taking students seriously. In NewmannF. (Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools (pp. 40–61). New York: Teachers College Press.
18.
GamoranA., SecadaW. G., & MarrettC. B. (2002). The organizational context of teaching and learning: Changing theoretical perspectives. In HallinanM. (Ed.), Handbook of the sociology of education. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
19.
GraceG. (2003).Educational studies and faith-based schooling: Moving from prejudice to evidence-based argument.British Journal of Educational Studies, 51, 149–167.
20.
GrantG. (1988). The world we created at Hamilton High. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21.
GreeleyA. M. (1982). Catholic high schools and minority students. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
22.
GrossmanP. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.
23.
HallinanM. (1992).The organization of students for instruction in the middle school.Sociology of Education, 65, 114–127.
24.
HallinanM. (2008).Teacher influences on students’ attachment to school.Sociology of Education, 81, 271–283.
25.
HarrisJ. C. (2000). The funding dilemma facing Catholic elementary and secondary schools. In YounissJ. & ConveyJ. J. (Eds.), Catholic schools at the crossroads (pp. 55–71). New York: Teachers College Press.
26.
HofferT. B. (1998).Social background and achievement in public and Catholic high schools.Social Psychology of Education, 2, 7–23.
27.
HollandD., & QuinnN. (1987). Cultural models in language and thought. New York: Cambridge University Press.
28.
JencksC. (1985). How much do high school students learn?Sociology of Education, 58, 128–135.
29.
JepsenC. (1999). The effectiveness of Catholic primary schooling. Unpublished manuscript. Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
30.
KellyS. (2004). Do increased levels of parental involvement account for the social class difference in track placement?Social Science Research, 33, 626–659.
31.
KellyS. (2007).Classroom discourse and the distribution of student engagement within middle school English classrooms.Social Psychology of Education, 10, 331–352.
32.
KellyS. (2008).Race, social class, and student engagement in middle school English classrooms.Social Science Research, 37, 434–448.
33.
Ladson-BillingsG. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
34.
Ladson-BillingsG. (2007). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory and practice. In BanksJ. A. & BanksC. A. M. (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (6th ed., pp. 219-246). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
35.
LeeV. E., & SmithJ.B. (1999).Social support and achievement for young adolescents in Chicago: The role of school academic press.American Educational Research Journal, 36, 907–945.
36.
LeeV. E., Chow-HoyT. K., BurkhamD. K., GeverdtD., & SmerdonB. A. (1998). Sector differences in high school course taking: A private or Catholic school effect?Sociology of Education, 71, 314–335.
37.
LoganJ. R., StowellJ., & OakleyD. (2002). Choosing segregation: Racial imbalance in American public schools, 1990-2000. Albany, NY: Lewis Mumford Center for Comparative Urban and Regional Research.
38.
LortieD. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39.
McDillE. L., NatrielloG., & PallasA. (1986).A population at risk: Potential consequences of tougher school standards for student dropouts.American Journal of Education, 94, 135–181.
40.
McEwanP. J. (2000). Comparing the effectiveness of public and private schools: A review of evidence and interpretations (Occasional Paper No. 3). New York: National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education.
41.
McGreevyJ. T. (1996). Parish boundaries: The Catholic encounter with race in the twentieth-century urban north. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
42.
MetzM. H. (1978). Classrooms and corridors: The crisis of authority in desegregated secondary schools. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
43.
MorganS. L. (2001).Counterfactuals, causal effect heterogeneity, and the Catholic school effect on learning.Sociology of Education, 74, 341–374.
44.
NewmannF. M. (1992). Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
45.
NewmannF. M., MarksH.M., & GamoranA. (1996).Authentic pedagogy and student performance.American Journal of Education, 104, 280–312.
46.
NystrandM. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
47.
NystrandM., & GamoranA. (1997). The big picture: Language and learning in hundreds of English lessons. In NystrandM., Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom (pp. 30–74). New York: Teachers College Press.
48.
OakesJ. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
49.
PaceJ. L., & HemmingsA. (2007).Understanding authority in classrooms: A review of theory, ideology and research.Review of Educational Research, 77, 4–27.
50.
PageR. N. (1991). Lower-track classrooms: a curricular and cultural perspective. New York: Teachers College Press.
51.
RaudenbushS. W., & BrykA.S. (1992/2002). Hierarchical linear models. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
52.
RiordonC. (2000). Trends in student demography in Catholic secondary schools, 1972-1992. In YounissJ. & ConveyJ. J. (Eds.), Catholic schools at the crossroads (pp. 33-54). New York: Teachers College Press.
53.
SanderW. (1996).Catholic grade schools and academic achievement.The Journal of Human Resources, 31, 540–548.
54.
SandersJ. W. (1977). The education of an urban minority: Catholics in Chicago, 1833–1965. New York: Oxford University Press.
55.
SchaubM. (2000). A faculty at a crossroads: A profile of American Catholic school teachers. In YounissJ. & ConveyJ. J. (Eds.), Catholic schools at the crossroads (pp. 72-86). New York: Teachers College Press.
56.
ScheerensJ., & BoskerR. J. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. New York: Pergamon.
57.
ShernoffD. J., CsikszentmihalyiM., SchneiderB., & ShernoffE. S. (2003).Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory.School Psychology Quarterly, 18, 158-176.
58.
ShoreB. (1996). Culture in mind: Cognition, culture, and the problem of meaning. New York: Oxford University Press.
59.
SilbermanC. E. (1970). Crisis in the classroom. New York: Random House.
60.
SimmonsP. E., EmoryA., CarterT., CokerT., FinneganB., CrockettD. … LabudaK. (1999).Beginning teachers: Beliefs and classroom actions.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 930–954.
61.
SnijdersT., & BoskerR. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London: Sage Publications.
62.
SorensenA. B. (1970).Organizational differentiation of students and educational opportunity.Sociology of Education, 43, 355–376.
63.
StataCorp. (2007). Stata Statistical Software: Release 10. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.
64.
UekawaK., BormanK., & LeeR. (2007).Student engagement in U.S. urban high school mathematics and science classrooms: Findings on social organization, race, and ethnicity.The Urban Review, 39, 1-43.
65.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2002). Schools and staffing survey, 1999-2000: Overview of the data for public, private, public charter, and Bureau of Indian Affairs elementary and secondary schools (NCES1999-348). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
66.
WeickK. E. (1976).Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems.Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 21, 1-19.
67.
WillmsD. J. (1985).Catholic-school effects on academic achievement: New evidence from the High School and Beyond follow-up study.Sociology of Education, 58, 98-114.
