Advertisement

Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 183–207 | Cite as

Tracking instructional quality across secondary mathematics and English Language Arts classes

  • Morgaen L. Donaldson
  • Kimberly LeChasseur
  • Anysia Mayer
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Teachers have the largest school-based influence on student learning, yet there is little research on how instructional practice is systematically distributed within tracking systems. We examine whether teaching practice varies significantly across track levels and, if so, which aspects of instructional practice differ systematically. Using multilevel modeling, we find that teachers of low track classrooms provided significantly less emotional support, organizational support, and instructional support to students in their classes than did teachers of high track classrooms. Mathematics classes were also observed to have higher quality instructional support for both content understanding and analysis and problem solving than English classes. We develop cases illustrating how small but significant differences in instructional quality are associated with substantially diverging lived experiences for students in high and low track classes.

Keywords

Instructional quality Teacher quality Tracking Secondary schools 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Aaronson, D., Barrow, L., & Sander, W. (2007). Teachers and student achievement in the chicago public high schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 25(1), 95–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abu El-Haj, T. R., & Rubin, B. C. (2009). Realizing the equity-minded aspirations of detracking and inclusion: Toward a capacity-oriented framework for teacher education. Curriculum Inquiry, 39(3), 435–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen, J. P., Pianta, R. C., Gregory, A., Mikami, A. Y., & Lun, J. (2011). An interaction-based approach to enhancing secondary school instruction and student achievement. Science, 333, 1034–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allison, P. D. (2002). Missing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ansalone, G. (2010). Tracking: Educational differentiation or defective strategy. Educational Research Quarterly, 34(2), 3–17.Google Scholar
  6. Archbald, D., Glutting, J., & Qian, X. (2009). Getting into honors or not: An analysis of the relative influence of grades, test scores, and race on track placement in a comprehensive high school. American Secondary Education, 37, 65–81.Google Scholar
  7. Asquith, P., Stephens, A. C., Knuth, E. J., & Alibali, M. W. (2007). Middle school mathematics teachers’ knowledge of students’ understanding of core algebraic concepts: Equal sign and variable. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 9(3), 249–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ayalon, H., & Gamoran, A. (2000). Stratification in academic secondary programs and educational inequality in Israel and the United States. Comparative Education Review, 44(1), 54–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barton, P. E., & Coley, R. J. (2009). Parsing the achievement gap II. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Services.Google Scholar
  10. Boaler, J. (2000). Students’ experiences of ability grouping-disaffection and polarization. British Educational Research Journal, 26(3), 631–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bohn, C. M., Roehrig, A. D., & Pressley, M. (2004). The first days of school in effective and less effective primary-grades classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 104, 269–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. P. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Bowman, B. T., & Stott, F. M. (1994). Understanding development in a culture context: The challenge for teachers. In B. Mallory & R. New (Eds.), Diversity and developmentally appropriate practices: Challenges for early childhood education (pp. 19–34). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  14. Burris, C. C., Wiley, E., Welner, K., & Murphy, J. (2008). Accountability, rigor, and detracking: Achievement effects of embracing a challenging curriculum as a universal good for all students. Teachers College Record, 110(3), 571–608.Google Scholar
  15. Cadima, J., Leal, T., & Burchinal, M. (2010). The quality of teacher–student interactions: Associations with first graders’ academic and behavioral outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 48(6), 457–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cameron, C. E., Connor, C. M., & Morrison, F. J. (2005). Effects of variation in teacher organization on classroom functioning. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 61–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chetty, R., Friedman, J.N., Rockoff, J.E. (2013). Measuring the impacts of teachers I: Evaluating bias in teacher value-added estimates. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 19423.Google Scholar
  18. Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, authonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In R. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Minnesota symposia on child psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 43–77). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 77, 113–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Costello, A. (2012). Multimodality in an urban, eighth-grade classroom. Voices from the Middle, 19(4), 50.Google Scholar
  21. Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Incorporated.Google Scholar
  22. Decker, D. M., Dona, D. P., & Christenson, S. L. (2007). Behaviorally at-risk African American students: The importance of student–teacher relationships for student outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 45(1), 83–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Diamond, J., Randolph, A., & Spillane, J. (2004). Teachers’ expectations and sense of responsibility for student learning: The importance of race, class, and organizational habitus. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 35(1), 75–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dreeben, R., & Gamoran, A. (1986). Race, instruction, and learning. American Sociological Review, 51(5), 660–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Emmer, E. T., & Stough, L. M. (2001). Classroom management: A critical part of educational psychology, with implications for teacher education. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 103–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Flannery, K. B., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. M. (2009). School-wide positive behavior support in high school: Early lessons learned. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11(3), 177–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ford, D. Y., & Moore, J. L, I. I. I. (2013). Understanding and reversing underachievement, low achievement, and achievement gaps among high-ability African American males in urban school contexts. The Urban Review, 45, 399–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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(4), 325–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Garcia, S. B., & Guerra, P. L. (2004). Deconstructing deficit thinking: Working with educators to create more equitable learning environments. Education and Urban Society, 36(2), 150–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 110–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Grossman, P. L., & Stodolsky, S. S. (1995). Content as context: The role of school subjects in secondary school teaching. Educational Researcher, 24(8), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gutiérrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32, 19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first-grade classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure? Child Development, 76(5), 949–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hand, V. M. (2010). The co-construction of opposition in a low-track mathematics classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 97–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hanushek, E. A. (1992). The trade-off between child quantity and quality. The Journal of Political Economy, 100(1), 84–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Harris, D. M. (2012). Varying teacher expectations and standards: Curriculum differentiation in the age of standards-based reform. Education and Urban Society, 44(2), 128–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (2003). Instructional task, classroom discourse, and students’ learning in second grade. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 393–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hill, H. C., Ball, D. L., & Schilling, S. G. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: Conceptualizing and measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 372–400.Google Scholar
  40. Hill, H. C., Umland, K. U., Litke, E., & Kapitula, L. (2012). Teacher quality and quality teaching: Examining the relationship of a teacher assessment to practice. American Journal of Education, 118(4), 489–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hox, J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2012). Gathering feedback for teaching: Combining high-quality observations with student surveys and achievement gains. MET project. Seattle: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.Google Scholar
  43. Kelly, Sean. (2004). Are teachers tracked? On what basis and with what consequences. Social Psychology of Education, 7, 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kesner, J. E. (2000). Teacher characteristics and the quality of child-teacher relationships. Journal of School Psychology, 38(2), 133–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kulik, C., & Kulik, J. (1982). Effects of ability grouping on secondary school students: A meta-analysis of evaluation findings. American Educational Research Journal, 79, 415–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kupermintz, H. (2003). Teacher effects and teacher effectiveness: A validity investigation of the Tennessee Value Added Assessment System. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 287–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34, 159–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. LaPrade, K. (2011). Removing instructional barriers: One track at a time. Education, 131(4), 740.Google Scholar
  49. LeChasseur, K., Mayer, A., & Donaldson, M. (under review). The structuring of tracking: Instructional practice of teachers leading low and high track classes.Google Scholar
  50. Lee, V. E., Bryk, A., & Smith, J. B. (1993). The organization of effective secondary schools. Review of Research in Education, 19, 171–268.Google Scholar
  51. Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1999). Social support and achievement for young adolescents in Chicago: The role of school academic press. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 907–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lucas, S. R. (1999). Tracking inequality: Stratification and mobility in American high schools. NewYork: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  53. Lucas, S. R., & Berends, M. (2002). Sociodemographic diversity, correlated achievement, and de facto tracking. Sociology of Education, 75, 328–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Luke, D. A. (2004). Multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mashburn, A. J., Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., Downer, J. T., Barbarin, O. A., Bryant, D., & Burchinal, M. (2008). Measures of classroom quality in pre-kindergarten and children’s development of academic, language, and social skills. Child Development, 79(3), 732–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. McCaffrey, D. F., Lockwood, J. R., Koretz, D. M., & Hamilton, L. S. (2003). Evaluating value-added models for teacher accountability. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Merrienboer, J., & Stoyanov, S. (2008). Learners in a changing learning landscape: Reflection from an instructional design perspective. In J. Visser, M. Visser-Valfrey, D. N. Aspin, & J. D. Chapman (Eds.), Lifelong learning book series (Vol. 12, pp. 69–90). Dordrecht, South Holland: Springer.Google Scholar
  58. Mickelson, R. A. (2001). Subverting-Swann: First- and second-generation segregation in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 215–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mikami, Y., Allen, J. P., Pianta, R. C., & Lun, J. (2011). Effects of a teacher professional development intervention on peer relationships in secondary classrooms. School Psychology Review, 40(3), 367–385.Google Scholar
  60. Miller, S. M. (2010). Towards a multimodal literacy pedagogy: Digital video composing as 21st century literacy. In P. Albers & J. Sanders (Eds.), Literacies, arts, and multimodalities (pp. 254–281). Urbana-Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
  61. Miller, S. M. (2013). A Research metasynthesis on digital video composing in classrooms: an evidence-based framework toward a pedagogy for embodied learning. Journal Of Literacy Research, 45(4), 386–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Moller, S., & Stearns, E. (2012). Tracking success: High school curricula and labor market outcomes by race and gender. Urban Education, 47(6), 1025–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. NCTQ. (2013). State of the States 2013 Connect the Dots: Using evaluations of teacher effectiveness to inform policy and practice. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality.Google Scholar
  64. Nieto, S. (1995). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education. White Plains, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  65. Nunn, L. M. (2011). Classrooms as racialized spaces: Dynamics of collaboration, tension, and student attitudes in urban and suburban high schools. Urban Education, 46(6), 1226–1255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Oakes, J., Ormseth, T., Bell, R., & Camp, P. (1990). Multiplying inequalities: The effects of race, social class, and tracking on opportunities to learn mathematics and science. Santa Monica: RAND.Google Scholar
  67. Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structuring inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  68. 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 Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  69. Oakes, J., & Guiton, G. (1995). Matchmaking: The dynamics of high school tracking decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 3–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pace, J. L., & Hemmings, A. (2007). Understanding authority in classrooms: A review of theory, ideology, and research. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 4–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Pianta, R. C., & Hamre, B. K. (2005). Classroom assessment scoring system, secondary manual. Charlottesville, VA: Teachstone Training.Google Scholar
  72. Ponitz, C. C., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Grimm, K. J., & Curby, T. W. (2009). Kindergarten classroom quality, behavioral engagement, and reading achievement. School Psychology Review, 38(1), 102–120.Google Scholar
  73. Rice, J. K. (2003). Teacher quality: Understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.Google Scholar
  74. Riehl, C., Pallas, A. M., & Natriello, G. (1999). Rites and wrongs: Institutional explanations for the student course-scheduling process in urban high schools. American Journal of Education, 107(2), 116–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Rockoff, J. E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement. American Economic Review Papers & Proceedings, 94(2), 247–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Roorda, D. L., Koomen, H. M. Y., Spilt, J. L., & Oort, F. J. (2011). The influence of affective teacher–student relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic approach. Review of Educational Researcher, 81(4), 493–529.Google Scholar
  78. Rothstein, J. (2010). Teacher quality in educational production: Tracking, decay, and student achievement. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125, 175–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Rowan, B., Correnti, R., & Miller, R. J. (2002). What large-scale, survey research tells us about teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the “Prospects” study of elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 104, 1525–1567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Rubin, B. C. (2003). Unpacking de-tracking: When progressive pedagogy meets students’ social worlds. American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 539–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Ryan, R., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Sanders, W. L., Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future students academic achievement. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center. Retrieved December 6, 2007, from http://www.mccsc.edu/~curriculum/cumulative%20and%20residual%20effects%20of%20teachers.pdf.
  83. Sawchuk, S. (2013). Teachers’ ratings still high despite new measures: Changes to evaluation systems yield only subtle differences. Education Week, February 6, pp. 1–19.Google Scholar
  84. Slavin, R. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 471–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Steinberg, M., & Donaldson, M. (2015). The new educational accountability: Understanding the landscape of teacher evaluation in the post-NCLB era. Education Finance and Policy, 1–40.Google Scholar
  86. Stevenson, D. L., Schiller, K. S., & Schneider, B. (1994). Sequences of opportunities for learning. Sociology of Education, 67, 184–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Stodolsky, S. S., & Grossman, P. L. (1995). The impact of subject matter on curricular activity: An analysis of five academic subjects. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 227–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Stuhlman, M., Hamre, B., Downer, J., & Pianta, R. (n.d.). What should classroom observation measure? Charlottesville: University of Virgina.Google Scholar
  89. Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffney, S., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 357–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Van Houtte, M. (2004). Tracking effects on school achievement: A quantitative explanation in terms of the academic culture of school staff. American Journal of Education, 110, 354–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Veenman, M. V. J., Kok, R., & Blote, A. W. (2005). The relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills at the onset of metacognitive skill development. Instructional Science, 33, 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Watanabe, M. (2008). Tracking in the era of high stakes state accountability reform: Case studies of classroom instruction in North Carolina. Teachers College Record, 110(3), 489–534.Google Scholar
  93. Weinstein, R. S. (1996). High standards in a tracked system of schooling: For which students and with what educational supports. Educational Researcher, 25(8), 16–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Wells, A. S., & Serna, I. (1996). The politics of culture: Understanding local political resistance to detracking in racially mixed schools. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 93–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Williams, W. M., Bluthe, T., White, N., Li, J., Gardner, H., & Sternberg, R. J. (2002). Practical intelligence for school: Developing metacognitive sources of achievement in adolescence. Developmental Review, 22, 162–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Woodward, J., & Brown, C. (2006). Meeting the curricular needs of academically low-achieving students in middle grade mathematics. Journal of Special Education, 40(3), 151–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Worthy, J. (2010). Only the names have been changed: Ability grouping revisited. Urban review: Issues and ideas in public education, 42(4), 271–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Morgaen L. Donaldson
    • 1
  • Kimberly LeChasseur
    • 1
  • Anysia Mayer
    • 2
  1. 1.University of ConnecticutMansfieldUSA
  2. 2.California State University-StanislausTurlockUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options