Abstract
This study measured the mathematics admissions process, the mechanism by which educators assign students to the critical ninth-grade mathematics courses, against a meritocratic definition of fairness to determine if this process denied access to students from particular segments of society. While controlling for academic ability, this study assessed if socioeconomic status, race, gender, and school assignment taken independently and in combination were significant in predicting which students were denied admission to Algebra I and Geometry. The findings of this study evinced that students who scored in the upper quartile in mathematics were not scheduled into the gatekeeper mathematics courses without regard to their socioeconomic status, gender, or school assignment.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Commission on Precollege Guidance and Counseling (1986). Keeping the Options Open: Recommendations. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
Dade County Public Schools (1994, January). Improving Science and Mathematics for All Students: An Urban Systemic Initiative. Paper presented to the National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA.
Gamoran, A. (1993). Alternative uses of ability grouping in secondary schools: Can we bring high-quality instruction to low-ability classes? American Journal of Education 102(1): 1–22.
Gamoran, A., Nystrand, M., Berends, M., and LePore, P. (1995). An organizational analysis of the effects of ability grouping. American Educational Research Journal 32(4): 687–715.
Guiton, G., and Oakes, J. (1995). Opportunity to learn and conceptions of educational equality. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 17(3): 323–336.
McClelland, K. (1990). Cumulative disadvantage among the highly ambitious. Sociology of Education, 63: 102–121.
Montgomery County Public Schools (1994, April). Success for Every Student Plan. Paper presented to the National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA.
National Governors Association (1993). Ability Grouping and Tracking: Current Issues and Concerns. Washington, DC: National Governors Association.
Oakes, J. (1990). Multiplying Inequalities: The Effects of Race, Social Class, and Tracking on Opportunities to Learn Mathematics and Science. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Publications Department.
Oakes, J. (1992). Can tracking research inform practice? Technical, normative, and political considerations. Educational Researcher 21(4): 12–21.
Oakes, J. (1996). Making the rhetoric real. Multicultural Education 4(2): 4–10.
Oakes, J., Gamoran, A., and Page, R. (1992). Curriculum differentiation: Opportunities, outcomes, and meanings. In P. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Curriculum (pp. 570–608). New York: Macmillan.
Payzant, T. W., and Wolf, D. P. (1993). Piloting pacesetter: Helping at-risk students meet high standards. Educational Leadership 50(5): 42–45.
Shakeshaft, C. (1990). Administrative preparation for equity. In H. P. Baptiste, H. C. Waxman, J. W. deFelix, and J. E. Anderson (Eds.), Leadership, Equity, and School Effectiveness (pp. 213–223). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Smith, J. B. (1996). Does an extra year make any difference? The impact of early access to algebra on long-term gains in mathematics attainment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 18(2): 141–153.
Welner, K. G., and Oakes, J. (1996). (Li)Ability grouping: The new susceptibility of school tracking systems to legal challenges. Harvard Educational Review 66(3): 451–470.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Stone, C. Leveling the Playing Field: An Urban School System Examines Equity in Access to Mathematics Curriculum. The Urban Review 30, 295–307 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023246618407
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023246618407