A key element in educational reform has been to increase mathematical proficiency. We look at how five urban high schools with virtually all low-income, minority, and immigrant students have arranged for students to take algebra I, and we examine the course enrollments and grades of these student in the core college prep courses. Both preparation and these arrangements matter. We raise three questions: First, can algebra group be considered a key variable? Second, is it associated with a chain of events that are interrelated in shaping educational outcomes? Third, was value added through grouping options within algebra I? Our findings suggest that algebra group is a key variable and that options offered within algebra I were not associated with value added. The policy implications may be that for all practical purposes, resources and responsibility for preparing students for algebra should be directed primarily to the K-8 schools.
Boaler, J. (2002). Learning from teaching: Exploring the relationship between reform curriculum and equity. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 33, 239-258.
2.
Bruner, J. (1985). Vygotsky: A historical and conceptual perspective. In J. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspective (pp. 21-34). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
3.
California Department of Education. (n.d.). DataQuest [data]. Available from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds
4.
Carbonaro, W. J., & Gamoran, A. (2002). The production of achievement in equality in high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 801-827.
5.
Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., & Levi, L. (2003). Thinking mathematically. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
6.
Carpenter, T. P., & Levi, L. (2000). Developing conceptions of algebraic reasoning in the primary grades (Report No. 00-2). Madison, WI: National Center for Improving Student Learning and Achievement in Mathematics and Science.
7.
Carraher, D., Schliemann, A. D., & Brizuela, B. M. (2000, October). Early algebra, early arithmetic: Treating operations as functions. Paper presented at the XXII Meeting of the Psychology of Mathematics Education, North American Chapter, Tucson, AZ.
8.
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102, 294-343.
9.
Cuban, L. (1998). How schools change reforms: Redefining reform success and failure. Teachers College Record, 99, 453-477.
10.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). A blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
11.
Ferrini-Mundi, J., & Martin, W. G. (2003). Using research in policy development: The case of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. In J. Kilpatrick, G. M. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards (pp. 395-413). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
12.
Friedkin, N. E., & Scott, L. T. (1997). Social positions in schooling. Sociology of Education, 70, 239-255.
13.
Gamoran, A. (1987). The stratification of high school learning opportunities. Sociology of Education, 60, 135-155.
14.
Gamoran, A. (1991). The variable effects of high school tracking. American Sociological Review, 57, 812-828.
15.
Gamoran, A. (1992). Is ability grouping equitable?Educational Leadership and Administration, 50, 234-240.
16.
Gamoran, A., & Hannigan, E. 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, 241-254.
17.
Gamoran, A., & Mare, R. D. (1989). Secondary school tracking and educational inequality: Compensation, reinforcement, or neutrality?American Journal of Sociology, 94, 1146-1183.
18.
Gamoran, A., Porter, A. C., Smithson, J., & White, P. A. (1997). Upgrading high school mathematics instruction: Improving learning opportunities for low-achieving, low-income youth. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 325-338.
19.
Gamoran, A., & Weinstein, M. (1998). Differentiation and opportunity in restructured schools. American Journal of Education, 106, 385-416.
20.
Kaput, J. (in press). Employing children’s natural powers to build algebraic reasoning in the content of elementary mathematics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
Lee, V. E., Croninger, R. G., & Smith, J. B. (1997). Course-taking, equity and mathematics learning: Testing the constrained curriculum hypothesis in U.S. secondary schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 99-121.
22.
Lucas, S. R. (1999). Tracking inequality: Stratification and mobility in American high schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
23.
Masini, B. E. (2001, April). Race differences in exposure to algebra and geometry among U.S. eighth-grade students. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association meeting, Naperville, IL.
24.
Mehan, H., Villaneuva, I., Hubbard, L., & Lintz, A. (1996). Constructing school success: The consequences of untracking low-achieving students. New York: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Meyer, J. W. (1977). The effects of education as an institution. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 55-75.
26.
Meyer, J. W. (1987). Implications of an institutional view of education for the study of educational effects. In M. T. Hallinan (Ed.), The social organization of schools: New conceptualizations of the learning process (pp. 151-175). New York: Plenum.
27.
National Center for Improving Student Learning and Achievement in Mathematics and Science. (2000). Building a foundation for algebra in the elementary grades. In Brief, 1(2), 1-6.
28.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
29.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
30.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2002). Mathematics education research: Can the field deliver?Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 33, 313-318.
31.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2003a). Educational research in the No Child Left Behind environment. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 34, 185-190.
32.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2003b). A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
33.
Nesher, P., & Kilpatrick, J. (Eds.). (1990). Mathematics and cognition: A research synthesis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
34.
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven: CN: Yale University Press.
35.
Oakes, J. (1992). Can tracking research inform practice? Technical, normative, and political considerations. Educational Researcher, 21, 12-21.
36.
Oakes, J., Gamoran, A., & Page, R. N. (1992). Curriculum differentiation: Opportunities, outcomes, and meanings. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 570-608). New York: Macmillan.
37.
Olive, J., Izsak, A., & Blanto, M. (2002, October). Investigating and enhancing the development of algebraic reasoning in the early grades (K-8): The early algebra working group. Paper presented at the 24th Conference of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Athens, GA.
38.
Page, R. N. (1990). Games of chance: The lower-track curriculum in a college-preparatory high school. Curriculum Inquiry, 20, 249-281.
39.
Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
40.
Rosenbaum, J. E. (1976). Making inequality: The hidden curriculum of high school tracking. New York: John Wiley.
41.
Rumbaut, R. G., & Portes, A. (2001). Ethnicities: Children of immigrants in America. Berkeley: University of California Press.
42.
Sfard, A. (2003). Balancing the unbalanceable: The NCTM standards in light of theories of learning mathematics. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 353-392). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
43.
Siegler, R. S. (2003). Implications of cognitive science research for mathematics education. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter, A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 289-303). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
44.
Spade, J. Z., Columba, L., & Vanfossen, B. E. (1997). Tracking in mathematics and science: Courses and course-selection procedures. Sociology of Education, 70, 108-127.
45.
Steen, L. A. (1999). Algebra for all in eighth grade: What’s the rush?Middle Matters, 8(1), 6-7.
46.
Tate, W. F. (1997). Race-ethnicity, SES, gender, and language proficiency trends in mathematics achievement: An update. Trends in Mathematics Achievement, 28(6), 652-679.
47.
Wang, J., & Goldschmidt, P. (1999). Opportunity to learn, language proficiency, and immigrant status effects on mathematics achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 101-111.
48.
Wang, J., & Goldschmidt, P. (2003). Importance of middle school mathematics on high school students’ mathematics achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34, 3-17.
49.
White, P. A., Gamoran, A., Smithson, J., & Porter, A. C. (1996). Upgrading the high school math curriculum: Math course-taking patterns in seven high schools in California and New York. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analyses, 18, 285-307.
50.
Yonezawa, S., Wells, A. S., & Serna, I. (2002). Choosing tracks: Freedom of choice in detracking schools. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 37-67.
