Equity, Mathematics Reform and Policy: The Dilemma of ‘Opportunity to Learn’

Chapter
Part of the Mathematics Education Library book series (MELI, volume 55)

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.

Keywords

Mathematics Teacher Mathematics Classroom Teacher Quality Mathematics Discourse Assessment Policy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ball, D., Thames, M., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boaler, J. (2003). When learning no longer matters: Standardized testing and the creation of inequality. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(7), 502–506.Google Scholar
  3. Boaler, J. (2006a). How a detracked mathematics approach promoted respect, responsibility, and high achievement. Theory into Practice, 45(1), 40–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boaler, J. (2006b). Urban success: A multidimensional mathematics approach with equitable outcomes. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(5), 364–369.Google Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. Borman, K. (2005). Meaningful urban education reform: Confronting the learning crisis in mathematics and science. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chazan, D. (2000). Beyond formulas in mathematics and teaching: Dynamics of the high school algebra classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). Performance-based assessment and educational equity. Harvard Educational Review, 64(1), 5–30.Google Scholar
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Fuhrman, S. (2004). Introduction. In S. Fuhrman & R. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education (pp. 3–14). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  17. Gamoran, A. (1987). The stratification of high school learning opportunities. Sociology of Education, 60(3), 135–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. Hallinan, M. (1994). Tracking: From theory to practice. Sociology of Education, 67(2), 79–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hand, V. (2010). The co-construction of opposition in a low-track mathematics classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 97–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haney, W. (2000). The myth of the Texas miracle in education. Education Policy Analysis Archives 8(41). (http://epaa.asu.edu)
  23. Ingersoll, R. (1999). The problem of underqualified teachers in American secondary schools. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 26–37.Google Scholar
  24. Ingersoll, R., & Gruber, K. (1996). Out-of-field teaching and educational equality. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.Google Scholar
  25. Khisty, L., & Chval, K. (2002). Pedagogic discourse and equity in mathematics: When teachers’ talk matters. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 14(3), 154–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kitchen, R. (2003). Getting real about mathematics education reform in high-poverty communities. For the Learning of Mathematics, 23(3), 16–22.Google Scholar
  27. Lee, J. (2004). Multiple facets of inequity in racial and ethnic achievement gaps. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(2), 51–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lipman, P. (2004). High stakes education: Inequality, globalization and urban school reform. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.Google Scholar
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. Nathan, M., & Knuth, E. (2003). A study of whole classroom mathematical discourse and teacher change. Cognition and Instruction, 21(2), 175–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. NCTM. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  33. NCTM. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  34. NCTM. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  35. Oakes, J. (1995). Two cities’ tracking and within-school segregation. Teachers College Record, 96(4), 681–690.Google Scholar
  36. 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.Google Scholar
  37. 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.Google Scholar
  38. 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.Google Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schleppegrell, M. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  41. Shepard, L. (1991). Will national tests improve student learning? Phi Delta Kappan, 73(3), 232–238.Google Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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)

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational Leadership, Warner Graduate School of Education and Human DevelopmentUniversity of RochesterRochesterUSA
  2. 2.Department of Instruction and Curriculum LeadershipUniversity of MemphisMemphisUSA

Personalised recommendations