Abstract
Educational reformers have advocated for the use of discourse practices in mathematics classrooms in order to improve the quality of mathematics education. The research in this area suggests that when discourse practices are effectively implemented in classrooms among teachers with strong mathematics knowledge that student learning increases and achievement gaps are narrowed. However, this chapter considers how policy-level factors including academic tracking, teacher quality, and assessment policies may negatively influence students’ opportunity to learn related to mathematics discourse. We suggest that the existence of academic tracking may decrease the likelihood of students in low track classrooms from being introduced to mathematics discourse because of the low rigor often found in these settings. Teachers with weak mathematics knowledge and pedagogical skills may be less likely to possess the capacity to effectively implement mathematics discourse. In addition, the implementation of high stakes assessment policy in the United States via the No Child Left Behind Act may constrain the use of discourse practices in classrooms. This may occur when the format and content of a state assessment compels schools to use instructional strategies that do not promote the use of discourse practices related to mathematics. In the end, these policy-level factors may limit the use of discourse as a means to improve mathematics teaching and learning resulting in further stratification of mathematics knowledge in American classrooms.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Ball, D., Thames, M., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.
Boaler, J. (2003). When learning no longer matters: Standardized testing and the creation of inequality. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(7), 502–506.
Boaler, J. (2006a). How a detracked mathematics approach promoted respect, responsibility, and high achievement. Theory into Practice, 45(1), 40–46.
Boaler, J. (2006b). Urban success: A multidimensional mathematics approach with equitable outcomes. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(5), 364–369.
Boaler, J., & Staples, M. (2008). Creating mathematical futures through an equitable teaching approach: The case of Railside school. Teachers College Record, 110(3), 608–645.
Borman, K. (2005). Meaningful urban education reform: Confronting the learning crisis in mathematics and science. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Braddock, J., & Dawkins, M. (1993). Ability grouping, aspirations, and attainments: Evidence from the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988. Journal of Negro Education, 62(3), 324–336.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Buckley, L. (2010). Unfulfilled hopes in education for equity: Redesigning the mathematics curriculum in a US high school. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 42(1), 51–78.
Chazan, D. (2000). Beyond formulas in mathematics and teaching: Dynamics of the high school algebra classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Civil, M., & Planas, N. (2004). Participation in the mathematics classroom: Does every student have a voice? For the Learning of Mathematics, 24(1), 7–12.
Cobb, P., & Hodge, L. (2002). A relational perspective on issues of cultural diversity and equity as they play out in the mathematics classroom. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4(2/3), 249–284.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). Performance-based assessment and educational equity. Harvard Educational Review, 64(1), 5–30.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1995). Inequality and access to knowledge. In J. Banks & C. McGee Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 465–483). New York: Macmillan.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Fuhrman, S. (2004). Introduction. In S. Fuhrman & R. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education (pp. 3–14). New York: Teachers College Press.
Gamoran, A. (1987). The stratification of high school learning opportunities. Sociology of Education, 60(3), 135–155.
Gee, J. (2008). A sociocultural perspective on opportunity to learn’. In P. Moss, D. Pullin, J. Gee, E. Haertel, & L. Young (Eds.), Assessment, equity and opportunity to learn (pp. 76–108). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Greeno, J., & Gresafli, M. (2008). Opportunities to learn in practice and identity. In P. Moss, D. Pullin, J. Gee, E. Haertel, & L. Young (Eds.), Assessment, equity and opportunity to learn (pp. 170–199). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hallinan, M. (1994). Tracking: From theory to practice. Sociology of Education, 67(2), 79–84.
Hand, V. (2010). The co-construction of opposition in a low-track mathematics classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 97–132.
Haney, W. (2000). The myth of the Texas miracle in education. Education Policy Analysis Archives 8(41). (http://epaa.asu.edu)
Ingersoll, R. (1999). The problem of underqualified teachers in American secondary schools. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 26–37.
Ingersoll, R., & Gruber, K. (1996). Out-of-field teaching and educational equality. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.
Khisty, L., & Chval, K. (2002). Pedagogic discourse and equity in mathematics: When teachers’ talk matters. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 14(3), 154–168.
Kitchen, R. (2003). Getting real about mathematics education reform in high-poverty communities. For the Learning of Mathematics, 23(3), 16–22.
Lee, J. (2004). Multiple facets of inequity in racial and ethnic achievement gaps. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(2), 51–73.
Lipman, P. (2004). High stakes education: Inequality, globalization and urban school reform. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Madaus, G. (1994). A technological and historical consideration of equity issues associated with proposals to change the nation’s testing policy. Harvard Educational Review, 64(1), 76–95.
McNeil, L., & Valenzuela, A. (2000). The harmful impact of the TAAS system of testing in Texas: Beneath the accountability rhetoric. Cambridge: Harvard Civil Rights Project.
Nathan, M., & Knuth, E. (2003). A study of whole classroom mathematical discourse and teacher change. Cognition and Instruction, 21(2), 175–207.
NCTM. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
NCTM. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
NCTM. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Oakes, J. (1995). Two cities’ tracking and within-school segregation. Teachers College Record, 96(4), 681–690.
Oakes, J., Gamoran, A., & Page, R. (1992). Curriculum differentiation: Opportunities, outcome and meanings. In P. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 570–608). New York: Macmillan.
Oakes, J., Muir, M., & Joseph, R. (2000). Course-taking and achievement in mathematics and science: Inequalities that endure and change. Madison: National Institute of Science Education.
Pullin, D., & Haertel, E. (2008). Assessment through the lens of “opportunity to learn”. In P. Moss, D. Pullin, J. Gee, E. Haertel, & L. Young (Eds.), Assessment, equity and opportunity to learn (pp. 17–41). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rousseau, C., & Powell, A. (2005). Understanding the significance of context: A framework to examine equity and reform in secondary mathematics. The High School Journal, 88(4), 19–31.
Schleppegrell, M. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shepard, L. (1991). Will national tests improve student learning? Phi Delta Kappan, 73(3), 232–238.
Stevens, F. (1993). Applying an opportunity-to-learn conceptual framework to the investigation of the effects of teaching practices via secondary analyses of multiple-case-study summary data. The Journal of Negro Education, 62(3), 232–248.
Weiss, I. (1994). A profile of science and mathematics education in the United States, 1993. Chapel Hill: Horizon Research, Inc. (http://2000survey.horizon-research.com/reports/profile93.pdf)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Harris, D.M., Anderson, C.R. (2012). Equity, Mathematics Reform and Policy: The Dilemma of ‘Opportunity to Learn’. In: Herbel-Eisenmann, B., Choppin, J., Wagner, D., Pimm, D. (eds) Equity in Discourse for Mathematics Education. Mathematics Education Library, vol 55. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2813-4_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2813-4_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2812-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2813-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)