Does Detracking Work? Evidence from a Mathematics Curricular ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Detracking 33harm those at the top of the distribution appear unfounded. Unfortunately, however, we find thatstudents at the bottom of the distribution were negatively affected by the curricularintensification. Given that high achieving students are performing no better, and low achievingstudents are performing somewhat worse, on average curricular intensification negatively affectsstudents’ learning. We examine two explanations for this decline--the pedagogical challengesassociated with teaching a heterogeneous classroom and the effects of being in a classroom withlower achieving peers. We find little evidence that classroom heterogeneity accounts for thechanges that we observe, but peer effects appear to account for a substantial portion of thesechanges. As Algebra courses became modal in the district, the average level of peer achievementin Algebra courses declined. This decline explains a large portion of the fall-off in learning thatoccurred in Towering Pines Algebra classrooms over the study period. At the same time, themovement of relatively high-achieving students into Algebra classes increased the concentrationof low-achieving peers in General Math classes. This concentration explains a large proportionof the decline in learning that occurred in the district’s General Math courses.Similar iatrogenic peer effects may help to explain why the effects of curricularintensification efforts in Towering Pines and the Chicago Public Schools differ so dramaticallyfrom the predicted consequences of a constrained curriculum and the measured effects ofdetracking efforts in Scotland and Long Island. Curricular intensification lowered averagestudent achievement levels in courses across the Towering Pines even as it maintained theconcentration of students with below-basic skills in General Math courses. Similarly, Chicago’sAlgebra-for-all effort integrated 9 th grade mathematics classrooms even as it instituted thedouble-dose Algebra classes that concentrated low-performing students for part of the day. Thesepolicies were designed to detrack mathematics instruction, and for much of the student
Detracking 34population they did. However, these policies also unintentionally reinforced the academicisolation of a relatively small number of low-achieving students.It is possible, therefore, that policies that more fully eliminate instructional tracks, such asthe Long Island policy, may be more efficient and more equitable than policies that attempt tomake access to high-level courses within stratified course sequences more inclusive. However,our analysis suggests that the wholesale detracking strategy pursued in Long Island may alsopose risks. While curricular intensification in Towering Pines did not have a negative effect onachievement for students at the top of the skills distribution, this is largely due to the fact that thedistrict maintained a fairly selective 8 th grade Geometry classes for high-achieving students.While average incoming test scores for 8 th graders in Geometry declined over the study period asGeometry enrollments increased, very few students who had scored below basic in 7 th grademath enrolled in Geometry. This exclusionary policy seems to have boosted the returns toGeometry coursework in the district, and a more broad-based detracking policy might reversethose gains.Another approach that Towering Pines and other districts that undertake curricularintensification might pursue in order to avoid the negative peer effects that we observed is tofocus on improving incoming students’ skill readiness, particularly at the bottom of the skilldistribution. While Towering Pines raised the 7 th grade achievement scores of successive cohortsof students in preparation for taking more advanced 8 th grade mathematics courses, theproportion of students who scored below basic in 7 th grade remained relatively constant. Thesestudents’ early deficits likely constrained their ability to take advantage of the opportunity toenroll in more advanced coursework. Furthermore, our analyses suggest that the concentration oflow-achieving students in math classrooms hurt their classroom peers’ performance. By thinking
Page 4 and 5: Detracking 3Warning of a “rising
Page 6 and 7: Detracking 52005 school year, the d
Page 8: Detracking 7placements have positiv
Page 11 and 12: Detracking 10teacher professional d
Page 13 and 14: Detracking 12exert a positive effec
Page 15 and 16: Detracking 14Towering Pines in the
Page 17 and 18: Detracking 16have not demonstrated
Page 19 and 20: Detracking 18ordered logistic regre
Page 21 and 22: Detracking 20provides a better metr
Page 23 and 24: Detracking 22reported in Table 1, w
Page 25 and 26: Detracking 24look at the extent of
Page 27 and 28: Detracking 26The third panel of Tab
Page 29 and 30: Detracking 28over the study period.
Page 31 and 32: Detracking 30below basic in 7 th gr
Page 33: Detracking 32Towering Pines’ expe
Page 37 and 38: Detracking 36ReferencesAuthors. 200
Page 39 and 40: Detracking 38Loveless, T. (1999). T
Page 41 and 42: Detracking 40Table 1: Descriptive s
Page 43 and 44: Detracking 1Table 3: 10 th grade ma
Page 45 and 46: Detracking 2Table 5: Peer quality a
Page 47: Detracking 4Figure 1: Quantile regr

Does Detracking Work? Evidence from a Mathematics Curricular ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?