In 2003, Chicago schools required students entering ninth grade with below-average math scores to take two periods of algebra. This led to higher test scores for students with both above- and below-average skills, yet failure rates increased for above-average students. We examine the mechanisms behind these surprising results. Sorting by incoming skills benefitted the test scores of high-skill students partially through higher demands and fewer disruptive peers. But more students failed because their skills were low relative to classroom peers. For below-average students, improvements in pedagogy and more time for learning offset problems associated with low-skill classrooms. In some cases, classrooms were not sorted, but below-average students took an extra support class simultaneously. Test scores also improved in such classes.
AllensworthE.EastonJ. Q. (2005). The on-track indicator as a predictor of high school graduation. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
2.
AllensworthE.EastonJ. Q. (2007). What matters for staying on-track and graduating in Chicago Public Schools. Chicago, IL: the Consortium on Chicago School Research.
3.
AllensworthE.NomiT.MontgomeryN.LeeV. E. (2009). College preparatory curriculum for all: Academic consequences of requiring Algebra and English I for ninth graders in Chicago. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 367–391.
4.
AchieveInc. (2008). Closing the expectations gap: An annual 50-state progress report on the alignment of high school policies and the demands of college and careers. Retrieved from http://www.achieve.org/files/50-state-2008-final02-25-08.pdf
5.
ACT, Inc. (2007). Aligning postsecondary expectations and high school practice: The gap defined, policy implications of the ACT National Curriculum Survey Results, 2005-2006. Iowa City, IA: Author.
6.
AndersonL. W. (Ed.). (1984). Time and school learning. London: Croom Helm.
7.
ArgysL. M.ReesD. I.BrewerD. J. (1996). Detracking America’s schools: Equity at zero costs?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 15, 623–645.
8.
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (2010). Learning about teaching: Initial findings from the Measures of Effective Teaching Project (MET Project Research Paper). Seattle, WA: Author.
9.
BoalerJ.StaplesM. (2008). Creating mathematical futures through an equitable teaching approach: The case of Railside School. Teachers College Record, 110(3), 608–645.
10.
BloomB. S. (1974). Time and learning. American Psychologist, 29, 682–688.
11.
BottomsG. (2008). Redesigning the ninth-grade experience: Reduce failure, improve achievement and increase high school graduation rates. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.
12.
BrykA. S.LeeV. E.HollandP. B. (1993). Catholic schools and the common good. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13.
BurrisC. C.HeubertJ. P.LevinH. M. (2006) Accelerating mathematics achievement using heterogeneous grouping. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 105–136.
14.
BurrisC. C.WileyE.WelnerK.MurphyJ. (2008). Accountability, rigor, and detracking: Achievement effects of embracing a challenging curriculum as a universal good for all students. Teachers College Record, 110, 571–607.
FarkasG.SheehanD.GrobeR. P. (1990). Coursework mastery and school success: Gender, ethnicity, poverty groups within an urban school district. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 807–827.
17.
GamoranA. (1987). The stratification of high school learning opportunities. Sociology of Education, 60, 135–155.
18.
GamoranA. (2010). Tracking and inequality: New directions for research and practice. In AppleM.BallS. J.GandinL. A. (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of the sociology of education (pp. 213–228). London: Routledge.
19.
GamoranA.MareR. D. (1989). Secondary school tracking and educational inequality: Compensation, reinforcement, or neutrality?American Journal of Sociology, 94, 1146–1183.
20.
GamoranA.WeinsteinM. (1998). Differentiation and opportunity in restructured schools. American Journal of Education, 106, 385–415.
21.
GaretM. S.DeLanyB. (1988). Students, courses, and stratification. Sociology of Education, 61, 61–77.
22.
HallinanM. (1994a). School differences in tracking effects on achievement. Social Forces, 72, 799–820.
23.
HallinanM. (1994b). Tracking: From theory to practice. Sociology of Education, 67(2), 79–84.
24.
HansonS. L. (1994). Lost talent: Unrealized educational aspirations and expectations among U.S. youths. Sociology of Education, 67, 159–183.
25.
ImbermanS.KuglerA. D.SacerdoteB. (2009). Katrina’s children: Evidence on the structure of peer effects from Hurricane evacuees (National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 15291). Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w15291
26.
KaneT. J.TaylorE. S.TylerJ. H.WootenA. L. (2010). Identifying effective classroom practices using student achievement data (NBER Working Paper No. 15803). Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic Research.
27.
KellyS. (2008). What types of students’ effort are rewarded with high marks?Sociology of Education, 81, 32–52.
28.
LucasS. R. (1999). Tracking inequality: Stratification and mobility in American high school. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
29.
LovelessT. (1999). The tracking wars: State reform meets school policy. Washington, DC: Brooking Institution.
30.
LovelessT. (2009). Tracking and detracking: High achievers in Massachusetts middle schools. Washington, DC: The Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
31.
MillotB. (1995). Economics of educational time and learning. In CarnoyM. (Ed.), International encyclopedia of economics of education (pp. 353–358 ). Oxford, UK: Pergamon-Elsevier.
32.
NomiT. (2012). The unintended consequences of an algebra-for-all policy on high-skill students: The effects on instructional organization and students’ academic outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(4), 489–505.
33.
NomiT.AllensworthE. (2009). Double-dose algebra as an alternative strategy to remediation: Effects on students’ academic outcomes. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(2), 111–148.
34.
OakesJ. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
35.
OakesJ. (1994). More than misapplied technology: A normative and political response to hallinan on tracking. Sociology of Education, 67, 84–89.
36.
OakesJ. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
37.
PageR. N. (1987). Lower-track classes at a college-preparatory school: A caricature of educational encounters. In SpindlerG.SpindlerL. (Eds.), Interpretive ethnography of education: At home and abroad (pp. 447–472). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
38.
PageR. N. (1991). Lower track classroom: A curricular and cultural perspective. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
39.
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.
40.
PowellA. G.FarrarE.CohenD. K. (1985). The shopping mall high school: Winners and losers in the educational marketplace. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
41.
RosenbaumJ. E. (1976). Making inequality: The hidden curriculum of high school tracking. New York, NY: Wiley.
42.
RosenbaumJ. (1980). Track mispereeptions and frustrated college plans. Sociology of Education, 53, 74–88.
43.
RosenbaumJ. E. (1999). If tracking is bad, is detracking better?American Educator, 23(4), 24–29, 47.
44.
RubinB. C. (2008). Detracking in context: How local constructions of ability complicate equity. Teachers College Record, 110(3), 646–699.
45.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
46.
StarkelR.MartinezJ.PriceK. (2006). Two-period algebra in the 05–06 school year: Implementation Report. Chicago, IL: Chicago Public Schools.
WheelockA. (1992). Crossing the tracks: How “untracking” can save America’s schools. New York, NY: New Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
