In this article we explore equity issues related to school district decision-making about students’ opportunities to learn algebra. We chose algebra because of the important role it plays in the U.S. as a gatekeeper to future academic success. Current research has not yet explored issues of equity in district-level decision-making.
Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study
We examine the extent to which district decision-makers for mathematics attend to aspects of equity when they make decisions about resources related to the teaching and learning of algebra. The research questions guiding this study were: How do district decision-makers for mathematics report considering issues of equity when making decisions about students’ opportunities to learn Algebra I? How do district characteristics, particularly students’ racial and ethnic diversity, affect the extent of equity considerations by mathematics decision-makers?
Research Design
We surveyed a national probability sample of 993 district decision-makers for mathematics about criteria that they consider when they select and distribute resources and structure learning opportunities in algebra for students and teachers in their districts. These survey items were our attempt to identify district-level practices in relationship to an equity framework. In this study, we examine national patterns in criteria for decision-making about algebra resources and examine the relation of these criteria to district features using a structural equation model.
Findings
Our findings suggest that fewer decision-makers considered equity-related criteria in their decision-making about algebra, while many tended to endorse equality-related items addressing considerations for all students, such as giving all students the same resources or attending to preparation for standardized testing. The vast majority of decision-makers reported considering real life contexts for algebra when making decisions about professional development (PD) and curriculum, while fewer considered the students’ culture or culturally relevant teaching. Decision-makers in only about half of the districts reported considering structural aspects, such as tracking. Modeling of the survey responses indicates that decision-makers in the most racially or ethnically and linguistically diverse districts have the greatest tendency to consider equity criteria in structuring students’ opportunities to learn algebra.
Conclusions/Recommendations
The extent to which district decision-makers for mathematics attend to aspects of equity is noteworthy because their decisions inform the selection and distribution of educational resources for learning algebra across districts. These findings raise important concerns with respect to how district decision-making mobilizes and shapes the resources available to teachers and students. Recommendations include supporting district decision-makers in a) expanding their conceptions of real life contexts to include students’ culture, b) considering different framings of the problem of participation gaps, c) reconsidering ability grouping and understanding the negative consequences of tracking, and d) carefully examining the kinds of stated and unarticulated rules, rewards, and sanctions that get put into place to uncover how inequitable practices get perpetuated.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Achieve Inc. (2004). The expectations gap: A 50-state review of high school graduation requirements. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.achieve.org/expectationsgap2004
2.
Achieve Inc. (2009). American Diploma Project (ADP) end-of-course exams: 2009 annual report. Washington, DC: Author.
3.
AguirreJ. M., & ZavalaM. (2013). Making culturally responsive mathematics teaching explicit: A lesson analysis tool. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 8(2), 163—190.
4.
AlexanderP. A., & KulikowichJ. M. (1994). Learning from physics text: A synthesis of recent research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 895—911.
5.
AllensworthE., NomiT., MontgomeryN., & LeeV. 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(4), 367—391.
6.
ArmstrongD. (2010). Rites of passage: Coercion, compliance, and complicity in the socialization of new vice-principals. Teachers College Record, 112(3), 685—72.
7.
AuK. H. (2001). Culturally responsive instruction as a dimension of new literacies. Reading Online, 5(1), 1—11.
8.
AverillR., AndersonD., EastonH., MaroP. T., SmithD., & HyndsA. (2009). Culturally responsive teaching of mathematics: Three models from linked studies. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40(2), 157—186.
9.
BartonB., FairhallU., & TrinickT. (1998). Tikanga reo tātai: Issues in the development of a Māori mathematics register. For the Learning of Mathematics, 18(1), 3—9.
10.
BatteyD., & FrankeM. (2015). Integrating professional development on mathematics and equity countering deficit views of students of color. Education and Urban Society, 47(4), 433—462.
11.
BishopA. J. (1988). Mathematical enculturation: A cultural perspective on mathematics education. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publications.
12.
BoalerJ. (1993). The role of contexts in the mathematics classroom: Do they make mathematics more “real”?For the Learning of Mathematics, 13(2), 12—17.
13.
BoalerJ. (2006). How a detracked mathematics approach promoted respect, responsibility, and high achievement. Theory Into Practice, 45, 40—46.
14.
BoalerJ. (2011). Changing students' lives through the de-tracking of urban mathematics classrooms. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 4(1), 7—14.
15.
BoalerJ., & StaplesM. (2008). Creating mathematical futures through an equitable teaching approach: The case of Railside School. Teachers College Record, 110(3), 608—645.
16.
BollenK. A. (2014). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley.
17.
BordenL. L. (2011). The “verbification” of mathematics: Using the grammatical structures of Mi'kmaq to support student learning. For the Learning of Mathematics, 31, 8—13.
18.
BowersA. J. (2008). Promoting excellence: Good to great, NYC's District 2, and the case of a high-performing school district. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 7(2), 154—177.
19.
BrownK. M. (2004). Leadership for social justice and equity: Weaving a transformative framework and pedagogy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 77—108.
20.
BurrisC. C., HeubertJ., & LevinH. (2004). Math acceleration for all. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 68—71.
21.
BurrisC. C., HeubertJ., & LevinH. (2006). Accelerating mathematics achievement using heterogeneous grouping. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 103—134.
22.
BurrisC. C., & WelnerK. G. (2005). Closing the achievement gap by detracking. Phi Delta Kappan, 86, 594—598.
23.
CapperC. A., TheoharisG., & SebastianJ. (2006). Toward a framework for preparing leaders for social justice. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(3), 209—224.
24.
CarpenterT., FrankeM., & LeviL. (2003). Thinking mathematically: Integrating arithmetic and algebra in elementary school. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
25.
ChazanD. (2000). Beyond formulas in mathematics and teaching: Dynamics of the high school algebra classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
26.
ChunnE. W. (1988). Sorting Black students for success and failure: The inequality of ability grouping and tracking. Urban League Review, 11, 93—106.
27.
CivilM. (2002). Culture and mathematics: A community approach. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 23(2), 133—148.
28.
CivilM. (2007). Building on community knowledge: An avenue to equity in mathematics education. In NasirN., & CobbP. (Eds.), Improving access to mathematics: Diversity and equity in the classroom (pp. 105—117). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
29.
ClotfelterC. T., LaddH. F., & VigdorJ. L. (2015). The aftermath of accelerating algebra: Evidence from district policy initiatives. Journal of Human Resources, 50(1), 159—188.
30.
CobbP., & HodgeL. L. (2002). A relational perspective on issues of cultural diversity and equity as they play out in the mathematics classroom. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4(2 & 3), 249—284.
31.
CobbP., McClainK., LambergT., & DeanC. (2003). Situating teachers' instructional practices in the institutional setting of school and district. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 13—24.
32.
Cochran-SmithM. (1995). Color blindness and basket making are not the answers: Confronting the dilemmas of race, culture, and language diversity in teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 493—522.
CoganL. S., SchmidtW. H., & WileyD. E. (2001). Who takes what math and in which track? Using TIMSS to characterize US students' eighth-grade mathematics learning opportunities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(4), 323—341.
35.
CohenD. K., RaudenbushS. W., & BallD. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119—142.
36.
DalyA. J., & FinniganK. S. (2012). Exploring the space between: Social networks, trust, and urban school district leaders. Journal of School Leadership, 22(3), 493—530.
37.
DalyA. J., FinniganK. S., JordanN., MoolenaarN. M., & CheJ. (2014). Misalignment and perverse incentives: Examining the politics of district leaders as brokers in the use of research evidence, Educational Policy, 28(2), 131—144.
38.
DarderA., BaltodanoM., & TorresR. D. (2003). Critical pedagogy: An introduction. In DarderA., BaltodanoM., & TorresR. D. (Eds.), A critical pedagogy reader (pp. 1—21). New York, NY: Routledge/Falmer.
39.
DimitrovD. M. (2003). Marginal true-score measures and reliability for binary items as a function of their IRT parameters. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27(6), 440—458.
40.
ElmoreR. F., & McLaughlinM. W. (1988). Steady work: Policy, practice, and the reform of American education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
41.
EspinozaO. (2007). Solving the equity–equality conceptual dilemma: a new model for analysis of the educational process. Educational Research, 49(4), 343—363.
42.
FlodenR. (2002). The measurement of opportunity to learn. In PorterA. C., & GamoranA. (Eds.), Methodological advances in cross-national surveys of educational achievement (pp. 231—266). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
43.
FooteM. Q. (Ed.). (2010). Mathematics teaching and learning in K–12: Equity and professional development. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
44.
FowlerF. (2002). Survey research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45.
FrankensteinM. (2009). Using real real-life problems in teaching critical mathematical literacy. In VerschaffelL., GreerB., van DoorenW., and MukhopadhyayS. (Eds), Words and worlds: Modelling verbal descriptions of situations (pp. 111—30). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
46.
GamoranA. (1992). The variable effects of high school tracking. American Sociological Review, 812—828
47.
GamoranA., & HanniganE. 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(3), 241—254.
48.
GamoranA., PorterA. C., SmithsonJ., & WhiteP. A. (1997). Upgrading high school mathematics instruction: Improving learning opportunities for low-achieving, low-income youth. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(4), 325—338.
49.
GutiérrezR. (2002). Enabling the practice of mathematics teachers in context: Toward a new equity research agenda. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4(2&3), 145—187.
50.
GutiérrezR. (2008). A “gap-gazing” fetish in mathematics education? Problematizing research on the achievement gap. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 357—364.
51.
GutiérrezR. (2012). Context matters: How should we conceptualize equity in mathematics education? In Herbel-EisenmannB., ChoppinJ., WagnerD., & PimmD. (Eds.), Equity in discourse for mathematics education: Theories, practices, and policies (pp. 17—33). New York, NY: Springer.
52.
GutsteinE. (2003). Teaching and learning mathematics for social justice in an urban, Latino school. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(1), 37—73.
53.
GutsteinE. (2006). Reading and writing the world with mathematics: Toward a pedagogy for social justice. New York, NY: Routledge.
54.
GutsteinE., LipmanP., HernandezP., & de los ReyesR. (1997). Culturally relevant mathematics teaching in a Mexican American context. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(6), 709—737.
55.
HandV. (2003). Reframing participation: Meaningful mathematical activity in diverse classrooms (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
56.
HandV., & TaylorE. V. (2008). Culture and mathematics in school: Boundaries between “cultural” and “domain” knowledge in the mathematics classroom and beyond. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 187—240.
57.
HarklauL. (1994). Tracking and linguistic minority students: Consequences of ability grouping for second language learners. Linguistics and Education, 6(3), 217—244.
58.
HiebertJ. (2003). What research says about the NCTM Standards. In KilpatrickJ., MartinW. G., & SchifterD. (Eds.), A research companion to the principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 5—24). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
59.
HolmeJ. J., RichardsM. P., JimersonJ. B., & CohenR. W. (2010). Assessing the effects of high school exit examinations. Review of Educational Research, 80(4), 476—526.
60.
HonigM. I. (2003). Building policy from practice: District central office administrators' roles and capacity for implementing collaborative education policy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 292—338.
61.
HonigM. I. (2008). District central offices as learning organizations: How sociocultural and organizational learning theories elaborate district central office administrators' participation in teaching and learning improvement efforts. American Journal of Education, 114, 627—664.
62.
HonigM. I. (2009). No small thing: School district central office bureaucracies and the implementation of New Small Autonomous Schools Initiatives. American Educational Research Journal, 46(2), 387—422.
63.
HonigM. I., & RaineyL. R. (2014). Central office leadership in principal professional learning communities: The practice beneath the policy. Teachers College Record, 116(4), 1—48.
64.
JacksonP. W. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
65.
JosephG. G. (1987). Foundations of Eurocentrism in mathematics. Race & Class, 28(13), 13—28.
66.
KishL. (1995). Survey sampling. New York, NY: Wiley.
67.
Ladson-BillingsG. (1995a). Making mathematics meaningful in multicultural contexts. In SecadaW. G., FennemaE., & ByrdL. (Eds.), New directions for equity in mathematics education (pp. 126—145). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
68.
Ladson-BillingsG. (1995b). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 465—491.
69.
Ladson-BillingsG. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35, 3—12.
LeonardJ., BrooksW., Barnes-JohnsonJ., BerryR. Q.III (2010). The nuances and complexities of teaching mathematics for cultural relevance and social justice. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(3), 261—270.
72.
LinnR. L., BakerE. L., & BetebennerD. W. (2002). Accountability systems: Implications of the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Educational Researcher, 31(6), 3—16.
73.
LochmillerC. R. (2016). Examining principals' instructional feedback to high school math and science teachers. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(1), 75—109.
74.
LochmillerC. R., & Acker-HocevarM. (2016). Developing teacher instructional capacity in math and science: Principal strategies. Leadership & Policy in Schools, 15(3), 273—296.
75.
LucasS. R. (2001). Effectively maintained inequality: Education transitions, track mobility, and social background effects. American Journal of Sociology, 106(6), 1642—1690.
76.
MarshH. W., MuthénB., AsparouhovT., LüdtkeO., RobitzschA., MorinA. J., & TrautweinU. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling, integrating CFA and EFA: Application to students' evaluations of university teaching. Structural Equation Modeling, 16(3), 439—476.
77.
MarshallC. (2004). Social justice challenges to educational administration: Introduction to a special issue. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 3—13.
78.
MarshallC., & WardM. (2004). “Yes, but…”: Education leaders discuss social justice. Journal of School Leadership, 14, 530—563.
79.
MartinD. B. (2009). Mathematics teaching, learning, and liberation in the lives of black children. New York, NY: Routledge.
80.
McIntoshP. (1989). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. Peace and Freedom, July/August, 10—12.
81.
McIntyreA. (1997). Making meaning of whiteness: Exploring racial identity with white teachers. Albany: State University of New York Press.
82.
McKenzieK. B., & ScheurichJ. J. (2004). Equity traps: A useful construct for preparing principals to lead to schools that are successful with racially diverse students. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(5), 601—632.
83.
MeaneyT., TrinickT., & FairhallE. (2013). On size does NOT fit all: Achieving equity in Maori mathematics classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44, 235—263.
84.
MilnerH. R., & SelfE. (2012). Getting real about race: Colorblindness as complicit instructional ineffectiveness. National Journal of Urban Education and Practice, 6(1), 1—17.
85.
MoschkovichJ. N. (2010, Ed.). Language and mathematics education: Multiple perspectives and directions for research. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
86.
MosesR. (1995). Algebra: The new civil right. In LacampagneC. B., BlairW. D., & KaputJ. J. (Eds.), The Algebra Initiative colloquium (Vol. 2, pp. 53–67). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
87.
MosesR., & CobbC. E.Jr. (2001). Radical equations: Civil rights from Mississippi to the Algebra Project. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
88.
MurphyM. C., SteeleC. M., & GrossJ. J. (2007). Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18(10), 879—885.
89.
MuthénL. K., & MuthénB. O. (2012). Mplus user's guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
90.
NasirN. S. (2007). Identity, goals, and learning: The case of basketball mathematics. In NasirN. S., & CobbP. (Eds.), Improving access to mathematics: Diversity and equity in the classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
91.
National Center for Education Statistics (2011). Common core of data: Local education agency universe survey (2009–10 v.1a). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ccd
92.
National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics & TODOS: Mathematics for All (2016). Mathematics education through the lens of social justice: Acknowledgment, actions, and accountability. Retrieved from http://www.todos-math.org/socialjustice
93.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics (Vol. 1). Reston, VA: Author.
94.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: Authors.
95.
National Governors Association, Council of Chief State School Officers, & Achieve, Inc. (2008). Benchmarking for success: Ensuring U.S. students receive a world-class education. Washington, DC: National Governors Association.
National Research Council. (2011). Successful K–12 STEM education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
98.
NietoS. (2000). Placing equity front and center some thoughts on transforming teacher education for a new century. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 180—187.
99.
NomiT. (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(4), 489—505.
100.
OakesJ. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
101.
OakesJ., & GuitonG. (1995). Matchmaking: The dynamics of high school tracking decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 3—33.
102.
PaulF. G. (2005). Grouping within Algebra I: A structural sieve with powerful effects for low-income, minority, and immigrant students. Educational Policy, 19(2), 262—282.
103.
Purdie-VaughnsV., SteeleC. M., DaviesP. G., DitlmannR., & CrosbyJ. R. (2008). Social identity contingencies: How diversity cues signal threat or safety for African Americans in mainstream institutions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(4), 615—630.
104.
RafteryA. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology, 25, 111—163.
105.
RaoJ. N., & ThomasD. R. (2003). Analysis of categorical response data from complex surveys: An appraisal and update. In ChambersR. L., & SkinnerC. J. (Eds.), Analysis of survey data (pp. 85—108). New York, NY: Wiley.
106.
RaudenbushS. W., FotiuR. P., & CheongY. F. (1998). Inequality of access to educational resources: A national report card for eighth-grade math. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(4), 253—267.
107.
RaykovT., & TraynorA. (2016). Evaluation of multicomponent measuring instrument reliability in complex design studies. Structural Equation Modeling, 23(2), 270—277.
108.
RemillardJ. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers' use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211—246.
109.
RiehlC. J. (2000). The principal's role in creating inclusive schools for diverse students: A review of normative, empirical, and critical literature on the practice of educational administration. Review of Educational Research, 70(1), 55—81.
110.
RorrerA. K., SkrlaL., & ScheurichJ. J. (2008). Districts as institutional actors in educational reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(3), 307—358.
111.
ScottB. (2001). Coming of age. IDRA Newsletter, 28(3), 1—7.
112.
SecadaW. G. (1989). Educational equity versus equality of education: An alternative conception. In SecadaW. G. (Ed.), Equity in education (pp. 68—88). New York, NY: Falmer.
113.
SkrlaL., ScheurichJ. J., GarciaJ., & NollyG. (2001). Equity audits: A practical tool for increasing equity in schooling. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
114.
SowderJ. T. (2007). The mathematical education and development of teachers. In LesterF. K.Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 157—223). Reston, VA and Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing and National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
115.
SpillaneJ. (1996). School districts matter: Local educational authorities and state instructional policy. Educational Policy, 10(1), 63—87.
116.
SpillaneJ. (2000). Cognition and policy implementation: District policymakers and the reform of mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction, 18(2), 141—179.
117.
SpillaneJ., & ThompsonC. L. (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: The local education agency's capacity for ambitious instructional reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 185—203.
118.
SteeleM. D., RemillardJ., BakerJ. Y., KeazerL. M., & Herbel-EisenmannB. (2016). Learning about new demands in schools: Considering algebra policy environments (LANDSCAPE) findings from a national survey (RR-86). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
119.
SteinM. K., RemillardJ., & SmithM. S. (2007). How curriculum influences student learning. In LesterF. K.Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 319—369). Reston, VA and Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing and National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
120.
TheoharisG. (2010). Disrupting injustice: Principals narrate the strategies they use to improve their schools and advance social justice. Teachers College Record, 112(1), 331—373.
121.
TobinK. (1987). Forces which shape the implemented curriculum in high school science and mathematics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3, 287—298.
122.
TrujilloT. (2013). The politics of district instructional policy formation: Compromising equity and rigor. Educational Policy, 27(3), 531—559.
123.
UsiskinZ. (1985). We need another revolution in secondary school mathematics. In HirschC. R. (Ed.), The secondary school mathematics curriculum: 1985 Yearbook (pp. 1—21). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
124.
UsiskinZ. (1988). Conceptions of school algebra and uses of variables. In CoxfordA. F., & ShulteA. P. (Eds.), The ideas of algebra, K–12. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
125.
van ProoijenJ. W., & van Der KlootW. A. (2001). Confirmatory analysis of exploratively obtained factor structures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(5), 777—792.
126.
WatsonD. (2012). Norming suburban: How teachers talk about race without using race words. Urban Education, 47, 983—1004.
127.
WelnerK., & OakesJ. (1996). (Li) ability grouping: The new susceptibility of school tracking systems to legal challenges. Harvard Educational Review, 66(3), 451—471.
128.
WeltonA. D. (2013). Even more racially isolated than before: Problematizing the vision for “diversity” in a racially mixed high school. Teachers College Record, 115, 1—42.
129.
WiliamD., & ThompsonM. (2007). Integrating assessment with instruction: What will it take to make it work? In DwyerC. A. (Ed.), The future of assessment: Shaping teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
130.
WolfE. J., HarringtonK. M., ClarkS. L., & MillerM. W. (2013). Sample size requirements for structural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(6), 913—934.
131.
ZirkelS. (2008). The influence of multicultural educational practices on student outcomes and intergroup relations. Teachers College Record, 110(6), 1147—1181.
