ED 329 615

AUTHOR TITLE

INSTITUTION SPONS AGENCY REPORT NO PUB DATE CONTRACT NOTE AVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICE DESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

UD 027 750

Oakes, Jeannie; And Others Multiplying Inequalities: The Effects of Race, Social Class, and Tracking on Opportunities to Learn Mathematics and Science. Rand Corp., Santa Monica, Calif. National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. NSF-R-3928 Jul 90 SPA-8652467 152p.

Rand Corp., 1700 Main St., P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90406-2138. Reports Research/Technical (143)

MF01 Plus Postage. PC Not Available from EDRS. Blacks; *Educational Opportunities; Elementary Secondary Education; *Equal Education; High School Students; Hispanic Americans; *Mathematics Education; Multivariate Analysis; *Science Education; *Socioeconomic Status African Americans

This study examines the way the nation’s educational system distributes opportunities to learn mathematics and science among various groups of students. Participation and achievement in mathematics and science by women, minorities, and the poor is disproportionately low. Minorities and the poor, especially in inner cities, have considerably fewer opportunities to learn science and math, largely because of the kinds of schoois they attend. The section titles of this report are as follows: (1) “The Distribution of Opportunity”; (2) “The Effects of Student Characteristics on Opportunity”; (3) “Access to Science and Mathematics Programs”; (4) “Access to Qualified Science and Mathematics Teachers”; (5) “Access to Resources”; (6) “Classroom Opportunities: Curriculum Goals and Instruction”; and (7) “Implications.” An appendix provides a classification of courses offered at the secondary schools included in the sample. A 133-item reference list is included. (DM)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document.

**********************************A************************************

“PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS

MATERIAL IN MICROFICHE ONLY

HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL.RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC).”

Multiplying Inequalities

The Effects of Race, Social Class, and Tracking on Opportunities to Learn Mathema!ics and Science

Jeannie Oakes

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Office ot Educational Research and improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER (ERIC)

tiefhis document has been reproduced as

received from the person or organization

originating it

f Minor changes have been made to improve

reprodUClion Quality

Points ol view or opinions slated in this (10Cu

ment do not necessarily represent official

OE RI position or policy

The work described in this report was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant SPA-8652467.

ISBN: 0-8330-1080-8

The RAND Publication Series: The Report k the principal publication documenting and transmitting RAND’S major research findings and final research results. The RAND Note reports other outputs of sponsored research for general distribution. Publications of The RAND Corpration do not necessarily reflect the opinions or imlicies of the sponsors of RAND research.

Copyright 0 1990 The RAND Corporation

Published by The RAND Corporation 1700 Main Street, P.O. Box ‘2138, Santa Monica, CA 90106-2138

R-3928-NSF

Multiplying Inequalities

The Effects of Race, Social Class, and Tracking on Opportunities to Learn Mathematics and Science

Jeannie Oakes with Tor Ormseth, Robert Bell, Patricia Camp

July 1990

Supported by the National Science Foundation

RAN D

PREFACE

In its 1983 report to the nation, Educating Americans for the Twenty-First Century, the National Science Foundation (NSF) set an ambitious goal for precollege science and mathematics education: to provide “high standards of excellence for all studentswherever they live, whatever their race, gender, or economic status, whatever their immigration status or whatever language is spoken at home by their parents, and whatever their career goals.” Of particular concern to the NSF was whether an uneven distribution of opportunities to learn science and mathematics might be contributing to unequal outcomes. It seems obvious that students won’t learn what they are not taught, and that they won’t learn well if they are not taught well. However, no comprehensive studies have investigated what various groups of students experience in their schools and classrooms; and no analyses have been performed that suggest how these experiences might re- strict learning opportunities. Without such analyses, educators and policymakers have found it difficult to frame initiatives that might help achieve the NSF’s goal.

The NSF therefore asked RAND to undertake a study of the way the nation’s educational system distributes opportunities to learn mathematics and science among various groups of students. The inequalities documented here should be of interest to policymakers and educators who are concerned with improving both the processes and outcomes of mathematics and science education.

Some education observers resist considering children’s learning opportunities in the absence of other, often implicit variables. For example, some who see schools as meritocratic institutions consider achievement itself as the principal mediator of opportunity, arguing that children who achieve more are better able to benefit from and more deserving of the limited resources that are available. Others explain opportunity, achievement, and participation as a function of mental capacity; for them, the most important opportunities are con- ferred at birth or before (i.e., they believe that some groups of chil- dren, because of racial or class-linked heredity, simply do not have the mental capacity to be very high achievers). While the attribution of lower achievement and participation to an entire group’s suppos- edly lesser capabilities has been thoroughly discreditedand is

r

iv

clearly out of fashionproponents of this viewpoint remain active, though their arguments may be more subtle than in the past.

Other observers believe that children’s physiological historypar- ticularly mothers’ and children’s nutrition and drug usemust be in- cluded in any discussion of children’s opportunities to learn. Still others look to theories of cultural deprivation or to the nation’s his- tory of racial and/or class biases. Finally, some see inequalities as a regrettable but inevitable consequence of a shortage of high-quality educational resources and an attempt to use those resources in ways that will bring what they consider the highest educational return.

This study in no way attempts to discredit, endorse, or debate these viewpoints; they are merely acknowledged as having the capac- ity to shape the reading and interpretation of the fmdings reported here. Certainly they constitute an important contey..1. for understand- ing school practices. For example, the use of tracking and ability- grouping in mathematics and science stems from the widespread be- lief that children’s intellectual differences are so great that students with different perceived ability levels need to be taught in separate classes and that much of the curriculum, especially at the secondary level, is not appropriate for many students. Many see the coincidence of these differences with students’ racial and socioeconomic status as distressing, but not a matter over which schools have much control. Furthermore, many ignore the overall ineffectiveness of such group- ing practices in increasing achievement.

Categorical differences in schooling opportunities are important, for both educational and political reasons. First, unequal learning opportunities provide some specific clues to how educational practices may help create and perpetuate differences in achievement and par- ticipation. Thus, the patterns that emerge suggest important targets for policies aimed at increasing students’ clucational outcomes.

Second, whether or not opportunities push a particular group of children toward higher achievement may not be as important a con- sideration as the fact our nation views equal opportunity as a demo- cratic birthright. Yet the quality of the learning opportunities avail- able to different categories of children relates strongly to the social and economic circumstances of children’s families and communities. That such inequalities have no place in a democratic society is unar- guable and should not be controversial.

SUMMARY

Widely published statistics document patterns of disproportion- ately low achievement and participation in science and mathematics by women, minorities, and the poor. These patterns are generating increasing concern as the nation’s economic base shifts toward tech- nology and the traditional pool from which scientific workers have been drawn (i.e., young white males) continues to shrink. Without substantial increases in the educational achievement and participa- tion of currently underrepresented groups, the nation may not be able to meet its future scientific and technological needs. These human- capital issues converge with the long-standing policy objective of a fair distribution of economic and social opportunities. The specific policy issue of concern here is whether American schools give under- represented and low-achieving groups of students an equal opportu- nity to participate and achieve in these increasingly important fields.

STUDY APPROACH

This report examines the distribution of science and mathematics learning opportunities in the nation’s elementary and secondary schools. It addresses four key questions:

1. What science and mathematics are being taught to which stu- dents?

2. How are these subjects being taught? 3. By whom are they being taught? 4. Under what conditions are they being taught?

The educational system in the United States does not allocate op- portunities directly to individuals; rather, it provides them to groups of students, first through schools and then through classrooms. We have examined opportunities that are available at different schools, opportunities available in different classrooms within schools, and fi- nally, the participation of various groups of students in those classes and schools. We have considered not only differential opportunities associated with students’ race, social class, and neighborhood, but also the uniquely school-bound distinction of ability-group, or “track,” level. In brief, we have investigated whether different types of stu-

v

vi

dents have different opportunities to learn science and mathematics, and whether schools act on their judgments about students’ academic abilities in ways that limit science and mathematics opportunities generally, and the opportunities of poor and minority students in par- ticular.

Cross-sectional data about science and mathematics programs, teachers, and classroom practices in elementary and secondary schools obtained through the National Science Foundation’s 1985- 1986 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education (NSSME) provided an unprecedented opportunity to describe the ac- cess of various groups to critical schooling elements. We have ana- lyzed the distribution of various features of science and mathematics programs through cross-tabulations, correlational analyses, and anal- ysis of variance. We have contrasted schools serving students of dif- ferent racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds, and classrooms enrolling various types of students. We have used multivariate anal- yses to isolate the effects of particular school and classroom charac- teristics, and separate classroom analyses within schools of various types. These analyses provide important information about whether and how the distribution of specific features of schools and classrooms may affect the learning opportunities of different students.

FINDINGS

During the elementary grades, the science and mathematics expe- riences of children from low-income families, African-American and Hispanic children, children who attend school in central cities, and children who have been clustered in “low-ability” classes differ in small but important ways from those of their more advantaged and white peers. By the time the students reach secondary school, their science and mathematics experiences are strikingly different.

The Distribution of Judgments About Ability

Assessments of academic ability, placement in different tracks or ability-grouped classes, and the reduced educational opportunities that characterize low-track classes often parallel race and social class differences. At schools with large concentrations of low-income and non-Asian minority students, disproportionate percentages of teach- ers judge their science and mathematics students to have low ability. At schools with racially mixed student bodies, the proportion of

vii

classes judged to be high-ability diminishes as minority enrollment increases, and minority students are more likely than their white peers to be placed in low-track classes. Thus, to the extent that placement in classes at different ability levels affects students’ oppor- tunities to learnand the evidence from our study suggests that the effects are quite profoundminority students disproportionately suf- fer whatever disadvantages accrue to students in low-track classes.

The inequitable practices related to ability-grouping that we have identified in this study are commonly viewed as natural responses to differences in student aptitudes and achievements. But even if sup- posedly objective ability groupings appear logical, they are easily confounded with race and social class. Moreover, the differences in opportunities they provide actually limit instruction, rather than fme- tune it. Disparities in secondary school opportunites may reflect ear- lier conditions that have reduced the skills of disadvantaged students. However, we also see significant effects of race, social class, and locale on opportunities at the elementary level, where the cumulative effects of discrimination are less strong and where tracks are less predicated on prior achievement.

Access to Science and Mathematics Programs

With the exception of slightly greater amounts of time allocated to mathematics instruction in elementary schools with high concentra- tions of low-income and minority children, students from groups that as adults consistently achieve and participate less in science and mathematics have less access to science and mathematics curriculum. Low-income African-American and Hispanic students enrolled in sec- ondary schools where they are the majority have less-extensive and less-demanding science and mathematics programs available to them. They also have fewer opportunities to take the critical gatekeeping courses that prepare them for science and mathematics study after high schoolalgebra and geometry in junior high school and calculus in senior high school. High-ability students at low-socioeconomic- status (SES), high-minority schools may actually have fewer opportu- nities than low-ability students who attend more advantaged schools. Moreover, overall differences in schools’ science and mathematics programs are often compounded by inequalities in the opportunities available to various groups of students within schools. Students in low-track classes (disproportionately high percentages of whom are low-income and minority students) are far less likely than other stu-

()

viii

dents to be taking courses that emphasize traditional academic sci- ence and mathematics content. Although the differences are, in part, symptomatic of earlier conditions that fail to prepare disadvantaged students for rigorous courses, the net effect is that economically dis- advantaged and minority students have considerably less access to the knowledge considered necessary either to pursue careers in sci- ence and mathematics or to become scientifically literate, critical- thinking members of an increasingly technological workforce.

Access to Qualified Teachers

Several measures of teacher qualifications make clear that low- income and minority students have less contact with the best- qualified science and mathematics teachers. The frequency with which teaching vacancies occur and the difficulty principals have fill- ing vacancies with qualified teachers vary considerably among differ- ent types of schools. Teacher shortages appear most detrimental to low-income and minority students.

Most elementary and secondary school principals are fairly satis- fied with the caliber of their science and mathematics teaching staffs, but principals of racially mixed and high-minority schools more often complain that lack of teacher interest and/or inadequate preparation to teach causes serious problems at their schools. Principals at schools enrolling large concentrations of low-income or minority stu- dents or at schools in inner cities also report that fewer of their teach- ers are highly competent. Teachers are even less sanguine. Teachers at high-poverty, high-minority, and inner-city schools report most frequently that lack of teacher interest or insufficient background poses problems for science and mathematics instruction. Moreover, secondary teachers in inner-city and rural schools and schools en- rolling large concentrations of low-income children are less confident about their own science or mathematics teaching than teachers in more advantaged schools.

Evidence about teachers’ formal qualifications reveals many of the same patterns. In this study, we found scant evidence of differences in certification status, academic background, and teaching experience among elementary teachers wcrking in different types of schools (possibly because the nature of quality differences is hard to quantify at the elementary level), but we found substantial differences at sec- ondary schools of different types. Schools whose students are pre- dominantly economically advantaged and white and suburban schools

ix

employ teachers who are, on average, more qualified. Students at- tending these schools have greater access to science and mathematics teachers who are certified to teach their subjects, who hold bachelor’s or master’s degrees in those subjects, or who meet the standards set by professional associations.

Similarly, we found few differences in the qualifications of those teaching science and mathematics classes at different track levels at the elementary level, and substantial differences at the secondary level. Junior and senior high school students in low-ability classes are being taught by teachers considerably less well qualified than those teaching other levels. Nearly all types of secondary schools tend to place their least qualified teachers with low-ability classes and their most qualified teachers with high-ability classes. However, not all low- and high-track classes are equal, because of differences in the teacher pools available. In schools with less-qualified pools, teachers of low-track classes are less well qualified than those in schools with generally more qualified staffs. Students at the least advantaged schools must compete (through their class assignments) for teachers who are certified to teach mathematics and science or who have bachelor’s degrees in these fields. In schools where teach- ers are generally more qualified, the sorting of teachers is evident on more eubtle or higher-level qualificationsteachers’ perceptions of themselves Pe “master” teachers, years of teaching experience (which may represent either seniority or political clout in the school), and the holding of master’s degrees. As a result, high-track students in the least advantaged schools are often taught by teachers who are less qualified than those teaching low-track students in more advantaged schools.

Access to Resources

Students’ access to science and mathematics facilities and equip- ment appears to be similarly unequal. Students in low-income, high- minority schools have less access than students in other schools to computers and to staff who coordinate their use in instruction, to science laboratories, and to other common science-related facilities and equipment. Additionally, more principals and teachers at less- advantaged schools report that resource problems interfere with science and mathematics instruction. Finally, instruction in low- ability classes appears to be further constrained by science and mathematics texts that most teachers judge to be of lower quality.

1 1

Classroom Opportunities

The curricular goals that teachers emphasize and the instructional strategies they use also differ in ways that further confirm the unequal opportunities of disadvantaged, minority, and inner-city stu- dents. Teachers serving large proportions of these students place somewhat less emphasis on such essential curriculum goals as devel- oping inquiry and problem-solving skills. These disadvantages are compounded by differences in the curricular emphases in classes at different track levels, with low-ability classes the object of less teacher emphasis on nearly the entire range of curricular goals. Similar double-layered differences appear in classroom instruction. Teachers in schools with large concentrations of low-income and mi- nority students are less likely to promote active involvement in math- ematics and science learning. Students who are classified as average- and low-ability are disadvantaged in their access to engaging class- room experiences and teacher expectations for their out-of-school learning. Consequently, unequal access to science and mathematics curriculum goals is exacerbated by discrepancies in instructional con- ditions in classrooms.

These fmdings do not suggest that schools are differentiating science and mathematics curricular goals and instructional strategies in ways that are appropriate to the needs of students at different ability levels. On the contrary, students in low-track classes simply have less exposure to the teaching goals and strategies that are most likely to generate interest and promote learning among students at all achievement levels. Since low-income and minority students are disproportionately assigned to low-track classes, these differences fur- ther disadvantage these groups.

IMPLICATIONS

Our evidence lends considerable support to the argument that low- income, minority, and inner-city students have fewer opportunities to learn science and mathematics. They have considerably less access to science and mathematics knowledge at school, fewer material re- sources, less-engaging learning activities in their classrooms, and less-qualified teachers. These inequalities are linked to both charac- teristics of the schools and characteristics of the classrooms. Because schools judge so many low-income and minority students to have low ability, many of these students suffer from being in classrooms that offer less, even if their schools, as a whole, do not. Moreover, our find-

12

xi

ings are likely to be equally relevant for subject areas other than mathematics and science. The differences we have observed are likely to reflect more general patterns of educational inequality. As such, the implications of these findings extend beyond science and mathematics.

Our fmdings raise complex educational and ethical issues. Even though the data from this study do not link unequal opportunities di- rectly to differences in achievement and participation, they provide some important and specific clues about how educational practices may help create and perpetuate these differences. But whether or not equal opportunities push a particular group of children toward higher achievement, our nation rejects the view that we should provide less to those who are less advantaged or less able. Yet inner-city schools serving large concentrations of children from poor families or African- American and Hispanic minorities often lack the political clout to command resources equal to those of other schools. Teachers often view these schools as less-desirable places in which to teach, partly because of the economic and social disadvantages that shape their students’ lives. Also, these schools often pay less than surrounding suburban schools and offer poorer working conditions.

Within schools, educators believe they base decisions about who teaches what science and mathematics, to whom, how, and under what conditions on egalitarian and educationally sound criteria. But the processes and outcomes of tracking are complex, subtle, often in- formal, and incremental. Although the decisions are usually well. intentioned, considerable evidn-tce suggests that tracking, especially at secondary schools, fails to increase learning generally and has the unfortunate consequence of widening the achievement gaps between students judged to be more and less able. Although schools may think that they ration good teaching to those students who can most profit from it, we find no empirical evidence to justify unequal access to val- ued science and mathematics curriculum, instruction, and teachers.

Moreover, the inequalities are not likely to be either self-correcting or easily changed by policymakers or educators. As long as high- quality educational opportunities are scarce and strategies for teach- ing diverse groups of students are largely untested, powerful con- stituencies of advantaged communities and parents will seek to pre- serve the educational advantages they now have. Consequently, it will be necessary for policymakers and educators to seek strategies that will ameliorate present inequalities and at the same time improve the science and mathematics education provided to all

I 3

xli

students. A multiple-strategies approach seems most appropriate for this complex and controversial policy issue.

RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES

Call Attention to the Problem

Policymakers would do well to expand their efforts to fuel public concern about educational opportunities as well as outcomes. Making better and more evenly distributed learning opportunities a focus of national concern can help clarify means for addressing issues of Pdu- cational quality, future economic competitiveness, and social and eco- nomic justice. Strong advocacy from Washington and the state capi- tals would go a long way toward establishing a receptive climate for policies and practices aimed at both improving opportunities and dis- tributing them more fairly.

Generate Additional Resources

Policymakers must seek new resources through new public fund- ing, creative uses of existing funding, and new alliances with the pri- vate sector. And these resources should be accompanied by policies that change priorities for their allocation. New resources for materi- als and staff should go first to those schools with the greatest need those that lag behind in computers, laboratories and materials, and well-qualified teachers. Like other affirmative-action strategies, how- ever, policies aimed at providing new resources for these schools will confront political opposition to what may be .seen as preferential treatment. The determination to ward off that opposition is often more easily sustained at the federal level. Nonetheless, state and lo- cal policymakers must also frame such farsighted policies.

Distribute Resources and Opportunity More Equitably

Many states are currently renewing their efforts to equalize fund- ing levels across districts and schools. Such efforts, if successful, could provide the resources low-income schools need to purchase the facilities, materials, and staffing they now lack, But financial incen- tives may need to be altered to prevent good teachers from abandon- ing schools that serve low-income and minority students,

1 4

Policies are also needed that encourage a more equitable distribu- tion of resources and opportunities within schools. For example, the federal government, states, local education agencies, and universities can all initiate programs aimed at developing new knowledge and building staff capacity to work effectively with diverse groups of stu- dents.

New school organizational schemes must be developed. These might include flexible staffing patterns such as teams of teachers sharing responsibility for diverse groups of students and/or staggered working hours to provide some teaching staff extra instructional time after school or in the evening for students requiring additional help. Other arrangements could involve more flexible use of resources from categorical programs. But if schools hope to make greater science and mathematics learning opportunities accessible to diverse groups of students, they will also need to redesign science and mathematics curriculum and instruction. Such curricular developments will help ensure that any move away from ability-grouped classes will be ac- companied by higher-quality instruction for all students. Perhaps most important, improved curriculum and instruction should bolster the skills of currently disadvantaged children early on, so that they can more easily claim access to rigorous mathematics and science courses in junior and senior high school.

Hold States, Districts, and Schools Accountable for Equalizing Opportunity

Finally, given the difficulty and the potential political disincentives to equalizing educational opportunities, federal, state, and local ef- forts to reach this goal should be carefully monitored. As long as states view public accountability schemes as tools for encouraging lo- cal efforts to increase student outcomes, equalizing opportunities should be a part of what districts and schools are held accountable for. Educational data systems should be designed to report indicators of school resources, curriculum, teachers, instructional conditions, and outcomes by student race and SES. Such indicators could provide insights into how new educational policies could interrupt the patterns of unequal opportunities. Moreover, the public accounting could inform and energize communities and parents who may not otherwise realize that their children are getting less. Such monitor- ing effbrts should be supported by a hierarchy of financial incentives to develop programs for equalizing opportunity, beginning at the fed- eral level and extending to states, communities, and schools.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Although responsibility for the analyses and interpretations in this study remains with the authors, the report has been enhanced by the generous involvement of a number of fine colleagues. Shirley Malcom and Audrey Champagne of the American Association for the Advancement of Science provided helpful comments on the initial questions and design of the study, as did Leigh Burstein of the University of California, Los Angeles, Thomas Romberg of the University of Wisconsin, and Kenneth Sirotnik of the University of Washington. Iris Weiss of Horizon Research provided ongoing guidance regarding the design and use of the 1985-1986 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education (NSSME). Linda Darling-Hammond of Columbia University and RAND colleague Arthur Wise provided insightful reviews. Richard Berry and Ronald Anderson of the National Science Foundation gave encouragement and support. Finally, Janet De Land lent a fine editor’s hand to the final report.

CONTENTS

PREFACE iii

SUMMARY

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xv

FIGURES xix

TABLES xxi

Section I. THE DISTRIBUTION OF OPPORTUNITY 1

Organization of the Report 3 Dimensions of the Distribution of Opportunity . . 4 Study Approach 9 Limitations of the Study 10

II. THE EFFECTS OF STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS ON OPPORTUNITY 13

The Inseparability of Student Characteristics 13 The Relative Importance of Race and SES 16 The Relationships Between Ability Judgments

and Opportunity 17 Race, Social Class, and Ability Classifications 18

III. ACCESS TO SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS PROGRAMS 26

Time Spent on Science and Mathematics in Elementary Schools 27

Science and Mathematics Programs in Secondary Schools 30

Access to Courses Within Schools 42 Summary 44

N. ACCESS TO QUALIFIED SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS TEACHERS 46

Shortages of Qualified Teachers 47 Which Schools Have the Most-Qualified Teachers? . . 50 Which Classes Have the Most-Qualified Teachers? 62

xvii

V. ACCESS TO RESOURCES 68 What Science and Mathematics Resources Are

Available? 69 Do Resource Problems Hamper Instruction? 75 How Good Are the Textbooks? 77 Summary 79

VI. CLASSROOM OPPORTUNITIES: CURRICULUM GOALS AND INSTRUCTION 80

Curriculum Goals and Expectations 80 Curricular Emphasis Across Schools and

Classrooms 82 Learning Approaches and Activities 88 Summary 100

VII. IMPLICATIONS 102 A Context of Diminished Resources and Low

Expectations 102 Three Scenarios for Righting Inequalities 106 Policies for Equalizing Opportunity and Improving

Science and Mathematics Education 107

Appendix: CLASSIFICATION OF COURSES 115

REFERENCES 121

FIGURES

2.1. Percentages of homogeneous ability classes, by school SES 20

2.2. Percentages of low-, average-, and high-ability classes in elementary schools, by school SES 20

2.3. Percentages of low-, average-, and high-ability classes in secondary schools, by school SES 21

2.4. Percentages of homogeneous-ability classes, by school racial composition 21

2.5. Percentages of low-, average-, and high-ability classes in elementary schools, by school racial composition 22

2.6. Percentages of low-, average-, and high-ability classes in secondary schools, by school racial composition 22

3.1. Time spent on science and mathematics in elementary schools serving different student populations 28

3.2. Mathematics and science classes per 100 students in grade 6-9 junior high schools, by school SES 33

3.3. Mathematics and science classes per 100 students in grade 6-9 junior high schools, by school racial composition 33

3.4. Mathematics and science classes per 100 students in senior high schools, by school SES 36

3.5. Mathematics and science classes per 100 students in senior high schools, by school racial composition 36

3.6. Junior high schools offering accelerated mathematics classes, by school SES and racial composition 38

3.7. Number of accelerated mathematics classes per 100 students in junior high schools offering accelerated mathematics classes, by school SES and racial composition 39

3.8. High schools offering calculus classes, by school SES and racial composition 40

3.9. Number of calculus classes per 100 students, by school SES and racial composition 41

xix

I ;s1

LC

4.1. Percentages of eecondary schools where life science/ biology teacher vacancies were of concern to principals, by school SES, racial composition, and location 49

4.2. Percentages of secondary schools where principals reported difficulty filling mathematics teacher vacancies, by school SES, racial composition, and location 51

4.3. Percentages of secondary schools where principals reported difficulty filling life science/biology teacher vacan.cies, by school SES, racial composition, and location 52

4.4. Proportion of secondary school mathematics teachers considered highly competent by their principals, by school SES, racial composition, and location 54

4.5. Proportion of secondary school science teachers considered highly competent by their principals, by school SES, racial composition, and location 55

4.6. Percentages of secondary school principals who reported serious problems resulting from lack of teacher interest or preparation in science and mathematics, by school SES, racial compositi on, and location 56

4.7. Percentages of secondary school teachers who reported serious problems resulting from lack of teacher interest or preparation in science and mathematics, by school SES, racial composition, and location 58

4.8. Secondary teachers’ qualifications, by school SES 60 4.9. Secondary teachers’ qualifications, by school racial

composition 61 4.10. Secondary teachers’ qualifications, by chool

location 61 4.11. Secondary teachers’ qualifications, by ability level of

class to which they are assigned 63 4.12. Qualifications of secondary teachers in low-SES

schools, by ability level of assigned class 66 5.1. Percentages of elementary schools with computer

coordinators, by school SES and racial composition . . . . 70 5.2. Availability of science laboratories in elementary

schools, by school racial composition 72 5.3. Percentages of secondary schools with computer

coordinators, by school SES and racial composition . . . . 73

2

TABLES

2.1. Schools in various race, SES, and locale categories 15

2.2. Ability levels of classes in elementary schools, by racial composition of class relative to school enrollment 24

2.3. Ability levels of classes in secondary schools, by racial composition of class relative to school enrollment 24

3.1. Significance of SES, race, and locale differences for senior high school course offerings 37

3.2. Distribution of general, academic, and advanced science and mathematics courses in senior high schools, by ability level of class 43

3.3. Distribution of general, academic, and advanced science and mathematics classes, by class racial composition 44

4.1. Qualifications of secondary teachers in high- and low-ability classes in schools of different types 66

5.1. Percentages of secondary schools providing mathematics and science coordinators, by school SES, racial composition, and locale 74

5.2. Percentages of principals reporting resource problems, by school SES, racial composition, and locale 76

5.3. Percentages of teachers reporting resource problems, by school SES, racial composition, and locale 77

6.1. Elementary teachers’ curricular objectives: relationship to class ability level 83

6.2. Secondary teachers’ curricular objectives: relationship to class ability level 85

6.3. Secondary teachers’ curricular objectives in high- and low-ability classes in schools of different types 87

6.4. Pementages of secondary teachers including various instructional activities in last science or mathematics lesson, by class ability level 97

xxi

6.5. Percentages of time spent on various instructional activities in secondary science and mathematics lessons, by class ability level 97

6.6. Percentages of time spent on various instructional activities in high- and low-ability classes in secondary schools of different types 99

0 .1 4.., c

I. ME DISTRIBUTION OF OPPORTUNITY

In 1983, the National Science Foundation (NSF) set an ambitious goal for precollege science and mathematics education: to provide “high standards of excellence for all studentswherever they live, whatever their race, gender, or economic status, whatever their im- migration status or whatever language is spoken at home by their parents, and whatever their career goals” (National Science Board (NSB), 1983:12). But the disproporfionately low achievement and participation in science and mathematics of women, minorities, the poor, and high school students who are not in college-preparatory programs reveals clearly that this goal is not being met.1

The lack of achievement and participation by these groups has generated considerable concern as the nation’s economic base shifts increasingly toward technology. This concern is heightened by demo- graphic projections showing that the traditional pool from which sci- entific workers have been drawn, i.e., young white males, is shrink- ing. Future cohorts of workers will comprise increasing proportions of non-Asian minoritiesgroups that traditionally have not entered sci- entific and technological fields. These changes raise a number of specific policy questions: How can we ensure an adequate future sup- ply of highly trained mathematicians, scientists, and engineers? How can we provide the general labor force with the knowledge and skills needed for technological work? How can we attain the level of scien- tific literacy necessary for responsible, democratic decisionmaking about scientific and technological matters? There are no clear-cut an- swers to these questions. However, many observers suggest that if the educational achievement and participation of minorities do not increase substantially, the nation will not be able to meet its scientific and technological needs.

These human-capital issues have converged with the long-standing policy objective of fair distribution of economic and social opportuni- ties. As technology becomes increasingly central to work and national life, the achievement of women and minorities in science and math-

1These discrepancies have been detailed in several reports over the past five years, including American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 1984; Achievement Council, 1985; Berryman, 1983; Chipman Thomas, 1984; Darling- Hammond, 1985; National Alliance of Black School Educators (NABSE), 1984; National Science Board, 1987; National Science Foundation, 1988; Oakes, 1990; and Task Force on Women, Minorities, and the Handkapped in Science, 1988.

1

2

ematics will be a primary factor in the ability of these groups to com- pete for employment, wages, and leadership positions. While not all students have the interests or aptitude to become scientists or math- ematicians, the disparities for African-American and Hispanic minori- ties and the poor are so great that considerable science and mathe- matics talent is undoubtedly being lost from these groups. Moreover, many minority and poor students are failing to reach even the levels of mathematics and science literacy believed to be necessary for knowledgeable participation in an increasingly technological society. Minorities have made important progress toward closing the achieve- ment gap in the past two decades, but appalling disparities in school achievement and occupational status remain.

The NSF was particularly concerned with the possibility that an uneven distribution of opportunities to learn science and mathematics might be contributing to unequal outcomes. It is obvious that stu- dents will not learn what they are not taught and that they will not learn well if they are not taught well. However, no comprehensive descriptions of what various groups of students experience in their schools and classrooms have been available, nor have analyses been performed to suggest how these experiences might restrict learning opportunities. Without such analyses, educators and policymakers have found it difficult to frame initiatives that could help to achieve the NSFs goal.

This report responds to these concerns by examining the distribu- tion of science and mathematics education in the nation’s elementary and secondary schools. It provides information that should help to answer four key questions: What science and mathematics are being taught to which students? How? By whom? And under what condi- tions? The report has three broad objectives:

1. To 4.ocument the differences in science and mathematics cur- riculum, resources, classroom activities, and teacher quality among various groups of students in the nation’s schools.

2. To provide insights into how those differences might shape the learning opportunities of groups that typically have low levels of achievement and participation in science and math- ematics.

3. To explore the implications of these findings for precollege science and mathematics education policy and practice.

Drawing primarily on data from the 1985-1986 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education (NSSME), we explore whether

24

3

access to science and mathematics curriculum, resources, instruc- tional activities, and teachers relates to (1) characteristics of the school a student happens to attend, (2) characteristics of the class- room in which a student is enrolled, or (3) characteristics of school and classroom combined.

Our analyses reveal clear and consistent patterns of unequal op- portunities to learn mathematics and science. During the elementary grades, the science and mathematics experiences of large numbers of low-income children, African-American and Hispanic children, chil- dren who attend school in central cities, and children who have been judged to have “low ability” differ in small, but important ways from those of their more advantaged or white peers. By the time these students reach secondary school, the differences are striking. Low- income, minority, and low-ability students have considerably less ac- cess to science and mathematics knowledge; they have fewer material resources available to help them learn these subjects; their class- rooms offer less-engaging learning activities; and their teachers are less-qualified. These differences can be traced to characteristics of both the schools in which different groups of students are clustered and the classrooms in which they are taught. Because school officials judge so many low-income and minority students to have low ability, many of these students suffer the double disadvantage of being in schools that have fewer resources and classrooms that offer less ac- cess to knowledge.

ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

The remainder of this section describes a conceptual framework for understanding the distribution of opportunities. This framework suggests that distributional analyses must consider a comprehensive set of school, classroom, and student characteristics, and that the best way to assess individuals’ opportunities is by examining the schools and classrooms in which particular groups of students are clustered. Finally, it describes the data and methods used in the study and their limitations. Section II describes how students’ race and social class characteristics overlap with schools’ assessments of their abilities and their placement in various types of science and mathematics classes. Section III examines the distribution of science and mathematics curricula, as evidenced by the types of courses schools offer. Section IV examines teachers’ experience and qualifications and assesses how the distribution of these factors may influence students’ learning and

4

participation. Section V analyzes the allocation of science and math- ematics resources to schools of various types. Section VI considers classroom processesthe emphasis teachers give to various curricu- lar objectives, the instructional activities they include in lessons, and how they use classroom time. Finally, Section VII discusses the im- plications of the distributional pitterns found in the study. Our focus on the specific dimensions of science and mathematics opportuni- tiesresources, teachers, curriculum, and instructional practices enables us to evaluate policies and practices that are likely to remedy discrepancies.

DIMENSIONS OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF OPPORTUNITY

Our educational system does not allocate opportunities directly to individuals; rather, it allocates them to groups of studentsfirst through states and school districts, and then through schools and classrooms. Consequently, distributional studies require comprehen- sive analyses at both the school and classroom levels, and the findings will undoubtedly reflect the resources made available by states and districts. It is necessary to describe, first, differences in the re- sources, instructional conditions, and teachers available to schools and, second, how schools distribute those resources to different class- rooms. While this departs somewhat from the usual approach of fo- cusing on individuals or groups to explain how their opportunities dif- fer, this institution-based rather than individual- or group-based ap- proach has several advantages. First, the clustering of students in schools and classrooms strongly influences the opportunities that they enjoy. Students’ access to knowledge, resources, teachers, and classroom processes is shaped by the characteristics of the schools and classes in which they are enrolled. Moreover, this approach en- ables us to examine the availability of opportunities at several grade levels. This adds important information, since what students actually experience in their science and mathematics classrooms, from the earliest grades through senior high school, will cumulatively influ- ence both what they learn and whether they continue to participate in the pre-college mathematics and science pipeline.

At the school level, data are needed on the programs offered and the human and material resources available to deliver them. The courses that make up secondary schools’ science and mathematics curricula suggest the programs’ breadth, depth, and extent. In ele- mentary schools, the amount of instructional time spent in science

0 i)

5