Abstract
The proportion of students taking a first algebra course in middle school has doubled over the past generation and there have been calls to make eighth grade algebra universal. We use significant policy shifts in the timing of algebra in two large North Carolina districts to infer the impact of accelerated entry into algebra on student performance in math courses as students progress through high school. We find no evidence of a positive mean impact of acceleration in any specification and significant negative effects on performance in both Algebra I and the traditional followup course, Geometry. Accelerating algebra to middle school appears benign or beneficial for higherperforming students but unambiguously harmful to the lowest performers. We consider whether the effects reflect the reliance on less-qualified teachers and conclude that this mechanism explains only a small fraction of the result.
I. Introduction
In 2008, the California State Board of Education voted to require all students to enroll in algebra by eighth grade.1 This policy initiative, yet to be implemented, represents the culmination of a decades-long movement toward offering algebra instruction before the traditional high school years.2 Nationally, the proportion of eighth grade students enrolled in algebra doubled between 1988 and 2007 (Perie, Moran, and Lutkus 2005; Walston and McCarroll 2010), reaching rates over 50 percent in three states and the District of Columbia.3 The movement to offer algebra instruction before high school has been inspired in large part by correlational research documenting significant differences in later-life outcomes between those students who enroll in algebra by eighth grade and those who do not.
Correlation need not imply causation, and it is unclear whether accelerated algebra enrollment—particularly when not accompanied by complementary curriculum reform in earlier grades—yields positive or negative effects (Loveless 2008). This paper provides a quasi-experimental estimate of the causal impact of accelerating the introduction of algebra coursework. We analyze policy initiatives introduced in two large North Carolina school districts in 2002–2003. These initiatives caused many students to take Algebra I earlier than they would have before the initiative, with the increase being especially abrupt for students in the middle deciles of the initial math achievement distribution. After maintaining the acceleration policy for two years, one district reversed course, reverting toward its previous placement pattern, whereas the other district persisted with acceleration.4 We use the across-cohort variation in placement patterns created by these abrupt shifts in policy to infer the impact of acceleration by comparing students with similar initial math achievement who were subjected to different placement policies solely on the basis of their year of birth. The analysis also incorporates, as an additional counterfactual, observations from four other large North Carolina school districts that exhibited no significant changes in eighth grade Algebra I-taking rates across the cohorts of interest.
We assess the effect of accelerating students into Algebra I in eighth grade by looking at several kinds of outcomes, beginning with standardized test scores on the statewide end-of-course (EOC) test in Algebra I. We also consider whether students post passing scores on the state’s followup EOC tests in Geometry and Algebra II.5 These courses comprise a portion of the North Carolina State Board of Education’s minimum standards for a college-preparatory course of study.6 We also provide some basic descriptive evidence on the likelihood of progressing to a calculus course in high school, the traditional culmination of a college-preparatory math course sequence beginning with Algebra I in eighth grade, and on the likelihood of repeating Algebra I.
We find that acceleration initiatives lowered the Algebra I test scores of affected students. Our preferred estimates indicate that moderately performing students who were accelerated into Algebra I in eighth grade scored nearly half a standard deviation lower on the state end-of-course exam, compared to otherwise similar students that were not subjected to acceleration.7 Additional specifications consistently show significant negative impacts of acceleration on the likelihood of receiving a passing grade on the state’s geometry exam, and at best no significant impact on the likelihood of passing the state’s examination in Algebra II.
It is reasonable to expect the effect of early algebra instruction to be heterogeneous, with the least harmful effects—and quite possibly positive effects—on the students with the strongest prior math performance. We present evidence consistent with this hypothesis. Our results suggest that the school districts studied here would optimize math course performance by having no more than 40 percent of their eighth grade students take Algebra I.
Our findings directly contradict prior correlational research, thereby casting doubt on the wisdom of teaching algebra to low-to-moderately performing students in eighth grade. We caution, however, that our results apply to the impact of changing the timing of the conventional first course in algebra, holding math instruction in the early grades constant. It is quite possible that a more thoroughgoing reform of the math curriculum, by way of promoting readiness for algebra by eighth grade, could well prove beneficial.8 Our results should also not be taken as evidence that math coursework in general has no value. On the contrary, Goodman (2012) shows that requiring additional math courses as high school graduation requirements—without specifying the rigor of those courses—yields tangible returns to students.
II. Origins of the Algebra Acceleration Movement
As suggested by the brief history sketched above, accelerating algebra instruction into middle school has been promoted as a strategy for improving the mathematics achievement and college readiness of American high school students. Nationwide, the proportion of 13-year-olds enrolled in algebra courses has increased markedly, rising from 16 percent in 1988 to 29 percent in 2004 (Perie, Moran, and Lutkus 2005). Among students in the nationally representative Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey Kindergarten cohort, just over one-third were enrolled in either algebra or a more advanced math course in 2006–2007 when most of the cohort was in eighth grade (Walston and McCarroll 2010). As noted above, there is significant variation from this average across jurisdictions.
This early algebra movement appears to have been bolstered in part by unwarranted causal inferences from correlational research. Eighth grade students enrolled in algebra consistently outscore their counterparts on eighth grade standardized math tests (Walston and McCarroll 2010). By the time they reach twelfth grade, early algebra-takers have completed more years of advanced math and attain higher scores on twelfth grade math assessments (Smith 1996). Other research has documented higher achievement outcomes among students who enroll in algebra at any point in their secondary school career (Dossey et al. 1988; Gamoran and Hannigan 2000). Ma (2005a, 2005b) reports that taking algebra in eighth grade is associated with the greatest improvement in math skills among the lowest-achieving students—particularly those below the sixty-fifth percentile of the seventh grade math distribution. To date, no study has attempted to address concerns regarding selection into early algebra on the basis of unobserved characteristics.9
But there have been skeptics. Concerns about the reliability of previous studies have provoked something of a backlash against accelerating algebra into middle school. Opponents of accelerated algebra argue that too many students enter the course unprepared for advanced work and may in fact fall behind their peers who had originally enrolled in less rigorous coursework. In a 2008 report, Loveless documents the poor math performance of some students enrolled in algebra by eighth grade, and it notes the inattention to the problem of possible selection bias in prior work justifying the push to offer algebra in middle school. The Loveless report itself, however, provides no evidence on the causal question of whether early placement in algebra promotes or retards mathematics achievement.10 The poorly performing students it cites may have performed just as badly in a more traditional eighth grade math course. An empirical assessment of the effects of accelerating the first algebra course requires comparison with a counterfactual: otherwise identical students who take algebra on a traditional schedule. This is exactly the counterfactual provided by the rapid and uneven rollout of accelerated algebra in at least two of North Carolina’s largest school districts.
From an economic perspective, algebra skills can be valued for two basic reasons. First, algebra skills may contribute directly to labor productivity.11 Second, algebra skills might serve as inputs into the production of higher-order mathematical knowledge, which in turn may affect productivity. It is because of this second function that algebra is sometimes called a “gateway” to higher mathematics and STEM courses in general.
If students are expected to complete their human capital investment by a specific age, the case for accelerating entry into algebra is clear: Initiating algebra earlier allows more time for instruction in both algebra and higher-order topics, thereby unambiguously increasing productivity. Things get more complicated when we introduce the possibility that both algebra and higher-order math skills rely on the degree to which students have mastered lower-order topics in mathematics. In this case, the question of optimal algebra timing means weighing the benefits of time to learn higher-order topics against the costs of insufficient mastery of pre-algebra concepts. The belief that students enter algebra too late is equivalent to an argument that too much time is devoted to lower-order subject matter.
What kinds of topics are short changed when algebra is accelerated? To get an idea, Table 1 describes the key competencies that North Carolina’s standard course of study establishes for several pre-algebra courses, ranging from seventh grade Math to Introductory Math, the course prescribed for students who do not take Algebra I upon entry into high school.12
North Carolina Standard Course of Study Competency Goals (2003)
The similarity in course objectives across seventh and eighth grade math and the high school introductory math course suggests the possibility of diminishing returns in lower-order mathematics instruction. The objectives of eighth grade Math and Introductory Math are nearly identical, suggesting that the high school course largely repeats subject matter for students who did not master it the first time around. Furthermore, the distinctions between seventh and eighth grade math objectives are minor: eighth graders, for example, are expected to perform computations with irrational numbers whereas in seventh grade computation with rational numbers is sufficient.
Although a perusal of these stated objectives suggests that pre-algebra courses are incremental if not redundant, it is possible that many students need repeated exposure to this subject matter. It is interesting to note, furthermore, that each of the middle-grades math courses includes significant attention to geometry. Computation of volume and surface area is a key component of the seventh grade curriculum, and the Pythagorean Theorem is mentioned specifically in the eighth grade curriculum. Both topics also appear in the high school Introductory Math course, and both relate directly to subjects covered in the state’s official Geometry curriculum, which focuses in part on right triangles, problems involving surface area and volume, and elementary proof writing.
Algebra I acceleration is not the only curricular reform that has been introduced in hopes of improving mathematics achievement. California’s Math A and New York’s Stretch Regents curriculum exemplify reforms that target the quality of pre-algebra instruction rather than the timing of algebra course taking (White 1995; White et al. 1996; Gamoran et al. 1997).13 Although evidence on the effectiveness of these programs is inconclusive (White et al. 1996; Gamoran et al. 1997), these alternatives may offer promising avenues to improve achievement in the event that accelerating algebra is judged not to be worth the cost of forgone pre-algebra instruction (Burris et al. 2006).
Although relevant to the question of optimal time allocation, the larger question of which math subjects have the strongest effects on productivity is beyond the scope of our empirical analysis. In one study pertinent to this issue, Rose and Betts (2004) analyze transcript data from the High School and Beyond data set, using straightforward methods to address concerns about self-selection into higher-order courses. That study suggests that the labor market return to higher-order coursework is greater than the return to coursework at the level of introductory algebra or geometry.
III. Data and Methodology
A. Data and Sample Selection
Our data, derived from North Carolina Education Research Data Center longitudinal records, focus on students who entered seventh grade between 1999–2000 and 2004–2005 and spent the subsequent school year in Charlotte-Mecklenburg, Guilford, or an alternate “control” district (identified in Section IIIC below).14 We restricted the sample to students with valid scores on the state’s standardized sixth and seventh grade mathematics assessment in order to stratify them by prior math performance. We then tracked students’ progress through college-preparatory math courses using the state’s end-of-course (EOC) examinations in Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II. When using our preferred set of districts and all available cohorts, our sample includes 135,752 students.15
By design, the sample includes some individuals whom we never observe enrolling in Algebra I. This exclusion of nonalgebra takers from the analysis could potentially lead us to overstate the negative effects of the acceleration policy, to the extent that acceleration policies necessarily expand the overall pool of Algebra I takers. In such a scenario, marginally performing students would appear in the sample only in years when acceleration was in effect.16
Selection-correction models, which require the use of either functional form assumptions or a second set of instruments that predict course taking but otherwise do not influence outcomes, are sometimes employed in these circumstances.17 As an alternative, we redefine our outcome variables such that all students can be included, whether or not they enroll in a course. Specifically, in most of our regression models we analyze whether students attain a passing grade on a mathematics end-of-course test soon enough to keep them on track to complete Algebra II within six years of beginning seventh grade.18 Students who never take a course are coded as not having passed that course. Were the acceleration to be associated with negative selective attrition—a higher rate of exit for students predisposed to poor outcomes—this coding would address the associated bias.19
In some specifications examining the effect of acceleration on Algebra I test scores, we employ a second strategy for addressing sample selection concerns. Adopting a strategy used by Neal and Johnson (1996), we assume that students who never enroll in Algebra I would have received a test score that was below the median for the set of students with identical observable characteristics, and then estimate quantile regression models.20 Provided that the imputed score is in fact below the median conditional on observables, arbitrarily changing the exact value of the imputed score does not influence the estimation.
B. Description of the Policy Initiatives
In the Fall of 2002, two of the three largest school districts in North Carolina adopted unusually aggressive policies to accelerate placement of middle and high school students into Algebra I. The districts, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools (hereafter, CMS) and Guilford County Public Schools (encompassing the cities of Greensboro and High Point), were led by strong superintendents who championed a policy of increasing the number of eighth graders taking Algebra I. The superintendent of CMS strongly believed as a matter of pedagogy that algebra should be offered to many, if not most, students in middle school, rather than waiting until they are in high school. Later described as “a bear on getting middle school kids in eighth grade to learn Algebra I,” this superintendent announced at the beginning of the 2001–2002 year that his goal would be to increase to 60 percent the portion of students in the district who were proficient in Algebra I by the end of eighth grade, as indicated by scoring at Level 3 or above on the state’s end-of-course test.21 In Guilford, a new superintendent began his tenure in May 2000 forcefully advocating a policy of enrolling as many eighth graders as possible in Algebra I.22 These superintendents not only broke from past patterns of course taking but also diverged significantly from policies followed by most other districts in North Carolina. To be sure, there was widespread interest in education circles at this time in the idea of accelerating the teaching of algebra, as noted in Section II above. Adding additional impetus, the state of North Carolina had increased from three to four the number of math courses required for admission to the University of North Carolina system.
Table 2a documents the impact of these policy initiatives, using longitudinal data for students entering seventh grade between 1999–2000 and 2004–2005.23 We track each of these six cohorts of students forward in time, even in situations where students were retained in grade, dividing the cohorts into three groups. The first group, the “pre-acceleration” cohorts, under normal grade progression would have entered eighth grade prior to the 2002–2003 school year. The second group is the “post I” cohorts, which entered eighth grade when both CMS and Guilford were at the peak of their acceleration programs. Finally, the “post II” cohorts entered at a time when CMS was retrenching but Guilford was not. As shown in the table’s first two rows, a student’s likelihood of enrolling in Algebra I by eighth grade jumped by 23 percentage points in CMS and 43 percentage points in Guilford between the “pre” and “post I” cohorts. The “post II” cohorts in CMS occupied an intermediate position, whereas in Guilford they continued to take Algebra I by eighth grade at a rate exceeding 75 percent.24
Probability of Completing Algebra I by Eighth Grade, Districts of Interest
Several other policy changes transpired in CMS during the period of our study. In 2002, the district ceased busing students to desegregate schools and implemented a public school choice plan, incorporating a lottery system for oversubscribed schools (Hastings, Kane, and Staiger 2005, 2006a, 2006b; Hastings et al. 2007; Deming et al. 2011; Vigdor 2011). These changes may have led to systematic declines in instructional quality for African-American and other disadvantaged students (Jackson 2009) that may have confounded the effects of accelerating algebra in CMS. We know of no similar potentially confounding policy shifts occurring in Guilford County at this time. To account for the possibility of such confounding changes, we present specifications that alternately exclude CMS and Guilford from the sample.
C. Identifying “Control” Districts
The most basic means of testing whether the CMS and Guilford accelerations affected student outcomes would be to compare average outcomes across cohorts. This basic strategy exposes us to the risk of conflating the effects of early algebra with any other simultaneous across-cohort trend, including shifts attributable to demographic change, alterations in the difficulty of end-of-course exams, or other education policy changes affecting students. To address at least some of these concerns, we introduce data on students in a comparison set of districts that exhibited no significant shifts in Algebra I placement policy across the three groups of cohorts examined here.
Table 2b provides data on the probability of enrolling in Algebra I by eighth grade for cohorts in the eight largest North Carolina school districts besides CMS and Guilford. These potential “control” districts are divided into two categories. The first category consists of districts where the likelihood of Algebra I enrollment by eighth grade does not vary significantly across the pre, post I, and post II periods, as determined by a chi-squared test. In each of these districts, the observed range of eighth grade Algebra I placement rates is no greater than 1.6 percentage points, more than an order of magnitude smaller than the observed range in CMS and Guilford. This group of districts includes Wake County, which at the time was the state’s second largest district after CMS, as well as the more suburban districts of Union, Johnston, and Gaston counties. Although Algebra I placement rates were stable in these counties, it should also be noted that they also tended to be lower than those in CMS and Guilford at baseline.
Probability of Completing Algebra I by Eighth Grade, Other Large Districts
The second category of potential comparison counties exhibits statistically significant variation in eighth grade Algebra I placement rates across cohort categories. As the goal of introducing counterfactual districts is to infer the trends in outcomes that would have transpired in the absence of an Algebra I policy change, we exclude these districts from most of the analysis. We note that in three of four cases the trend in Algebra I placement rates is opposite of that observed in CMS and Guilford—a decline from the “pre” period to “post I.” Moreover, in all cases the observed variation in eighth grade Algebra placement rates is less than one-third that observed in CMS and less than one-sixth the magnitude in Guilford. This assuages concerns that the Algebra I acceleration might have been prompted by a statewide initiative.
D. Overview of the Analysis
Using a sample consisting of CMS, Guilford, and the four “control” districts lacking significant variation in Algebra I placement rates, we present three distinct sets of regression estimates. The first set consists of basic OLS regressions akin to the correlational models found in prior studies. These regressions use individual-level variation in the timing of Algebra I coursework to estimate the partial correlation between early algebra and subsequent outcomes, conditional on prior math test score performance, cohort, and district fixed effects. These estimates are not intended to represent causal estimates but rather to establish that we can replicate findings in the earlier literature and to provide context for our subsequent results.
The second set of estimates are reduced-form difference-in-difference models where the independent variables of interest are not controls for when a student took Algebra I but rather a set of district-time period interactions that reveal whether student outcomes changed significantly once districts implemented an acceleration policy. These estimates can be thought of as “intent-to-treat” effects under certain assumptions. These models also control for prior student test performance, district, and time period effects.
The final set of estimates are derived from an instrumental variable strategy that uses the policy-induced variation in CMS and Guilford to identify the “treatment on the treated,” or a causal estimate of the impact of accelerating algebra on a typical accelerated student. We motivate and describe the IV strategy in greater detail below.
E. Benchmark Estimates of the Partial Correlation Between Early Algebra and Later Outcomes
Table 3 presents estimates from simple OLS regressions examining the basic relationship between Algebra I timing and the four outcomes, using data on the set of six districts identified above. These estimates should by no means be interpreted as causal effects, even though they include indicators that restrict comparison to students ranked in the same decile by average sixth and seventh grade math score. Even conditional on decile, earlier assignment to algebra in the cross-section is likely to be correlated with unobserved determinants of math achievement. Note also that we make no effort here to impute test scores for students who never take Algebra I, leading to a second source of bias in the estimates.25
Correlates of Math Success Measures: OLS Estimates
Consistent with earlier studies, our OLS specifications associate placement in Algebra I by eighth grade with better outcomes in subsequent years. Although students who complete Algebra I by eighth grade receive lower scores on the standardized test in that subject, they are significantly more likely to attain passing scores on both Algebra I and higher-level math exams on a college-preparatory schedule. The probability of passing Algebra II, equal to about 50 percent in our entire sample, is nine percentage points higher among students who complete Algebra I by eighth grade, conditional on the average sixth/seventh grade math test decile. Interpreted naively, the apparent advantage associated with early access to algebra is equivalent to the predicted impact of raising a student’s average sixth/seventh grade math test score by a full decile in the distribution. To reiterate our previous argument, however, these OLS estimates, like some prior estimates in the literature, are very likely to be contaminated by selection bias.
IV. Difference-in-Difference Results
Table 4 presents a set of reduced-form difference-in-difference estimates comparing outcomes before and after the onset of Algebra I acceleration, using data on students in CMS, Guilford, and the “Group 1” comparison districts identified in Table 2b, which show no significant change in eighth grade algebra placement rates across time periods. The regression models underlying these results control for period effects, district effects, and the student covariates included in the Table 3 specifications. These estimates can be interpreted as the “intent to treat” effects of the acceleration initiatives in each district in each time period.
Difference-in-Difference Estimates
Across the 16 effect estimates reproduced here, there is only one coefficient suggesting that accelerated students enjoyed a statistically significant advantage over their counterparts: The rate of passing Algebra I by tenth grade among Guilford students in the post II cohort is roughly three percentage points higher than in the pre-acceleration cohort, other things equal. By contrast, eight estimates of 16 are statistically significant and negative. The significant postacceleration decline in Algebra I EOC tests in Guilford is perhaps not surprising, as the OLS estimate in Table 3 is similarly negative. The statistically significant declines in the probability of passing Geometry and Algebra II, apparent in six of eight cases, directly contradict the evidence in Table 3. The juxtaposition of significant negative effects on test score outcomes and a significant positive impact on the probability of passing Algebra I by tenth grade—the case of Guilford students in the “Post II” period—can be explained by course retaking behavior, a pattern we examine in more detail below.
In summary, the reduced-form difference-in-difference evidence fails to confirm the positive correlation between early algebra and subsequent course performance seen in the OLS equation. The preponderance of the evidence points to negative, rather than positive, effects of early algebra on test scores or performance in subsequent coursework.
One possible concern with our reduced-form strategy relates to peer effects. A standard assumption of “intent-to-treat” style analysis is that “always-taking” students—those whose probability of taking Algebra I in eighth grade is high across all time periods in this context—should post the same outcome regardless of whether they are assigned to a “treated” or “control” group. In this case, “always-taking” students in a given decile-cohort may be adversely affected by the presence of lower-performing peers in their classroom (Nomi 2012).26 To the extent that these peer effects matter, our reduced-form estimates of the impact of acceleration may combine negative effects on always-takers with more modest, or perhaps even positive, effects on “compliers”—those students who take Algebra I early only when a district is engaged in acceleration. We investigate this possibility in our instrumental variables analysis below, and find evidence inconsistent with this interpretation—acceleration tends to be associated with more negative effects among students with low, rather than high, prior achievement.
V. Instrumental Variable Estimates Incorporating Variation in “Dosage”
A. Description of Methodology
The reduced form strategy described above yields straightforward, easily interpreted, “intent-to-treat” (ITT) type effects of the policy intervention on outcomes. By its nature, however, it is not appropriate for identifying “treatment on the treated” (TOT) effects, which in this context are interpreted as the effect of acceleration on the average student subjected to it. One simple approach to converting the ITT effects to TOT effects would scale them by the difference in observed probability of taking Algebra I across groups. We extend this simple strategy in two respects. First, we stratify students into individual cohorts rather than three time periods. Second, we make use of the fact that students with differing levels of prior performance in mathematics courses were subjected to widely differing changes in the likelihood of taking Algebra I by eighth grade.
Figures 1 and 2 provide greater detail on how the probability of taking Algebra I by eighth grade varied by both specific cohort and prior mathematics achievement level.27 Students are stratified by cohort—defined as the year they first enrolled in seventh grade—and by average performance on the sixth and seventh grade end-of-grade standardized math tests. Each bar in the graph represents a rate of taking Algebra I by eighth grade for a cohort/quintile cell. We stratify students by test score quintiles for purposes of this graph; in regression analyses below, we more finely stratify students by decile. Cohorts are denoted by the year their members became seventh graders for the first time. Thus it was students in the 2001–2002 cohort who first experienced the accelerated timetable for Algebra I introduced by CMS and Guilford in the fall of 2002.
Probability of taking Algebra I by eighth grade, by sixth grade math test score quintile and year entering seventh grade, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
Probability of Taking Algebra I by Eighth Grade, by Sixth Grade Math Test Score Quintile and Year Entering Seventh Grade, Guilford County Schools
As seen in both figures, baseline rates of algebra-taking by eighth grade were high in both districts relative to the national average for high-performing students, but low for low-performing students. In the first studied cohorts, 97 percent of CMS students in the top quintile of the statewide sixth grade math score distribution were enrolled in Algebra I by eighth grade, as were 93 percent of Guilford’s high-scoring students, compared to 75 percent of top quintile eighth graders nationwide, as recorded in the 2009 NAEP assessment (Walston and McCarroll 2010). By contrast, only 3 percent of CMS students, and 1 percent of Guilford students, in the lowest sixth grade math quintile had enrolled in Algebra I by eighth grade, compared to 13 percent in the national NAEP data.
Figures 1 and 2 make clear that the acceleration documented in Table 1 above was concentrated in the mid-to-lower portion of the prior achievement distribution. For students around the median in CMS, the likelihood of taking Algebra I by eighth grade increased from 51 percent to 85 percent. For students in the second-lowest quintile, the rate increased from 18 percent to 63 percent. Even in the lowest quintile of the sixth grade math distribution, the rate of Algebra I taking rose to 15 percent.28 Guilford’s acceleration was even more rapid than that in CMS. Lowest-quintile students in the 2004 cohort were placed in Algebra I in eighth grade at a rate of 36 percent, twice the maximum rate observed for that quintile in CMS. Rates of Algebra I placement by eighth grade peaked at 78 percent in the next-lowest quintile, and in the middle quintile exceeded 90 percent.
In our instrumental variable specification, the first stage equation takes the form:
(1)
where Tildc is an indicator for whether the student i belonging to cohort c and decile d in district l received the treatment—in this case, taking Algebra I by eighth grade, ϕl and ϕdc are district and cohort-by-decile fixed effects, Xildc represents a vector of student-specific characteristics, the δldc term represents a set of fixed effects for the district/cohort/decile cells subjected to acceleration, observable in Figures 1 and 2, and ηildc is an error term.29 These district-by-cohort-by-decile fixed effects serve as the instruments for purposes of identification. Predicted values derived from Equation 1 are then used in place of actual treatment status in the second-stage equation:
(2)
where yildc is the outcome of interest, αl is a district fixed effect, and αdc represents a set of cohort-by-decile fixed effects, and εildc is a second error term. Decile-by-cohort fixed effects account for any curricular or test change that would influence all students in a given prior achievement decile in a cohort across the state such as the introduction of a more difficult passing standard that might alter outcomes for moderately performing students but not those at either end of the distribution. The use of decile effects rather than a linear control for test score also allows us to account for potentially nonlinear effects of initial achievement on later outcomes.
The identifying assumption is that students in the accelerated cohort-decile cells in CMS and Guilford differ—relative to their counterparts in the same district, and relative to counterparts in the same decile-by-cohort cell in the other four Group 1 districts identified in Table 2b—only in their likelihood of taking Algebra I in eighth grade. Because the identifying variation in Algebra I timing is at the cohort-by-decile-by-district level, we cluster standard errors at that level.
Estimated treatment effects are “local” to that set of students subjected to differing treatment status across cohorts in CMS and Guilford, drawn primarily from the mid-to-lower portion of the prior test score distribution. Below, we report the results of specifications that permit the effect of Algebra I acceleration to vary by initial test score quintile within the set of quintiles exhibiting policy variation in CMS and Guilford.
For ease of interpretation, we report the results of two-stage least squares models when analyzing course passing outcomes.30 When evaluating Algebra I test scores, we estimate models based on the Chernozhukov and Hansen (2007) Instrumental Variable Quantile Regression (IVQR) estimator, using the Neal and Johnson (1997) imputation strategy described above to address concerns regarding selection into the sample of test takers.
B. Treatment-on-the-Treated IV Estimates
Table 5 shows instrumental variable estimates of the impact of taking Algebra I by eighth grade.31 These estimates include IVQR estimates, with imputed test scores for nonalgebra takers, for models analyzing variation in test scores and two-stage least squares for the three binary outcomes. Each model controls for combined sixth/seventh grade test score decile and cohort fixed effects, district fixed effects, and cohort-by-decile fixed effects. The instruments excluded from the second stage separately identify the district and cohort cells in CMS and Guilford that were subjected to significant increases in the likelihood of taking Algebra I in eighth grade, as indicated in Figures 1 and 2. First stage results uniformly indicate a sufficient amount of variation to assuage potential concerns about weak instruments.
Basic Instrumental Variables Results
The results generally support the basic difference-in-difference analysis. The TOT effects are generally larger in magnitude than the associated ITT effects in Table 4, consistent with the notion that the acceleration affected less than a quarter of all students in CMS and less than half in Guilford. Accelerated students score 45 percent of a standard deviation lower on their Algebra I end-of-course tests.32 They are about five percentage points more likely to pass the course by the time they complete tenth grade—once again, a seeming contradiction explained by course-retaking patterns. Two-stage least squares estimates indicate that accelerated students are significantly less likely—by 11 percentage points—to pass the Geometry EOC exam by eleventh grade, and point estimates suggest a negative impact on the likelihood of passing Algebra II as well.
Table 5 also reports coefficients on the student-level covariates included in the model—with the exception of test score decile indicators, which reveal a predictable pattern that students with higher prior test scores tend to attain better outcomes. Male students tend to have worse outcomes than female students conditional on covariates. Black and Hispanic students, perhaps surprisingly, have better chances of passing Algebra I and Algebra II conditional on covariates including past test scores, though black students are slightly less likely to pass Geometry. Students receiving free or reduced price lunch receive lower scores on end-of-course Algebra I tests and are less likely to pass the college preparatory coursework, other things equal.
C. Robustness Checks
Table 6 shows the results of several perturbations to the basic model, alternately deleting or adding districts to the set used to identify the effects of interest. Each entry in the table represents a different instrumental variables specification, with the test score specifications estimated by the IVQR procedure described above.
Alternate Specifications
The first row repeats the basic Table 5 results. The next two are identical to the basic model but omit CMS and Guilford in sequence. As noted previously, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools embarked on a series of policy shifts around the same time it implemented its algebra acceleration initiative. To address concerns that these other shifts may have had effects that confound the effect of interest, the second row of Table 6 uses a sample that omits CMS entirely, identifying effects solely on the basis of policy variation in Guilford County. The results are generally similar to those obtained with the full sample. The estimated impact of acceleration on test scores is substantially more negative in this sample. Across the three regressions examining course passage the estimates, while attenuated, retain statistical significance where it existed in the first place. The basic conclusion—that acceleration produced significantly lower test score outcomes and had a significant negative impact on the likelihood of passing geometry—remains intact.
Row 3, in which we return CMS to the sample and remove Guilford County, offers an opportunity to assess whether the negative effects of acceleration can be attributed to transition costs. The transition cost hypothesis generates the prediction that CMS-based estimates would be more negative than Guilford-based ones because CMS reversed itself on acceleration almost immediately, offering no chance to observe acceleration in “steady-state.”
Results based on the sample omitting Guilford yield more negative estimates in only one specification—passing Geometry by eleventh grade. The positive impact on passing Algebra I is slightly smaller as well. The estimated impact on test scores is less negative, and the effect on passing Algebra II is essentially unchanged. Ultimately, then, the data fail to support the hypothesis that negative effects of acceleration are largely the result of transition costs during the phase-in period. This conclusion is also supported by analysis of teacher time use allocation during the time of transition, which finds only a modest decline in Algebra I teacher qualifications in the first year of acceleration in CMS (Clotfelter, Ladd, and Vigdor 2012a).
D. Effect Heterogeneity
The effects estimated in our main analysis are local to the set of moderate-to-low performing students actually subjected to policy variation in CMS and Guilford. It is reasonable to think that the treatment effects of accelerating algebra instruction would be more benign for higher-performing students and possibly more detrimental for students at the bottom of the achievement distribution. Table 7 presents estimates from instrumental variables specifications that permit the effect of eighth grade algebra enrollment to differ among students by quintile of the sixth/seventh grade math test distribution.33 Note that the quantile regression strategy is implemented in this case with a reduced-form model (RFQR) rather than a two-stage model owing to technical difficulties associated with using a large set of instruments (Chernozhukov and Hansen 2005).
Instrumented Quintile Interaction Effects of the Impact of Acceleration into Algebra I in Eighth Grade
The results are consistent with the basic prediction of more modest impacts on higher-performing students in some cases, but in others a more nuanced pattern appears. When estimated by 2SLS the Algebra I test score specification suggests that the negative impact of acceleration on test scores is 50 percent larger for students below the fortieth percentile than those above the sixtieth. Estimation using test score imputations for nontakers and RFQR indicate, however, that the strong negative coefficient in the lowest quintile is attributable in large part to the impact of acceleration on selection into the sample. There is a negative impact of acceleration for the lowest quintile in the RFQR specification, but it is modest compared to effects estimated in higher quintiles. This pattern may reflect “floor effects” in that it may be difficult for the lowest-performing students to score worse than they do at baseline. It is noteworthy that the 2SLS and RFQR specifications produce comparable results in higher quintiles as would be expected in the absence of significant sample selection problems.
The positive effect of acceleration on the probability of receiving a passing score on the Algebra I EOC exam is much stronger in the lowest decile than it is in other deciles. This finding may reflect the fact that an extra opportunity to take the course may maximize the lifetime chances of passing the course for those least likely to pass the course at baseline. The estimated impact of acceleration on Geometry performance is estimated to be 50 percent more negative for low performers relative to above-average performers. Finally, the point estimates in the Algebra II specification, while not statistically significant, also show the most negative effects among the lowest-performing students.
As there is no significant policy-induced variation in the top quintile, we are unable to directly assess the impact of acceleration in that subset of students. Moreover, our coarse quintile analysis may obscure more fine-grained differences in the effect of acceleration within the next-highest quartile. As a conservative statement, these results caution that statistically significant harmful effects of acceleration extend to at least the sixtieth percentile of the initial math achievement distribution.
E. Bounding Heterogeneous Effects on Other Outcomes
In the face of the evidence presented above, one might continue to advocate for accelerating algebra coursework on the grounds that it creates opportunities for some students to pursue higher-level coursework, such as calculus, in high school. Unfortunately it is difficult to use the CMS and Guilford policy interventions to assess this hypothesis for two reasons. First, as noted above the interventions applied mostly to moderately performing students, not the high performers who presumably stand to benefit the most from the opportunity to enroll in calculus. Second, we are not able to track calculus enrollment or performance using our primary database of end-of-course test scores because North Carolina does not administer such tests in calculus. For some cohorts, however, we have access to complete high school transcript data that permits a more limited investigation of calculus taking.
In a simple comparison of calculus-taking rates among students who took Algebra I at varying points, we would expect the same sort of bias established in the analysis of other outcomes above. That is, students who take algebra early are likely to achieve better outcomes largely because they are positively selected. With this expectation in mind, we present basic evidence in Figure 3 to assess the potential positive impact of eighth grade algebra enrollment on calculus taking for students at various points in the achievement distribution, using the full sample of students across the ten districts identified in Tables 2a and 2b in cohorts observed for a full six years beginning when they first enroll in seventh grade.
Probability of Completing Calculus Within Five Years of Beginning Eighth Grade, by Percentile Rank of Mean Sixth/Seventh Grade Math Score, Ten District Sample
Two patterns are readily apparent in Figure 3. First, the plots slope upward: Higher-scoring middle school students are more likely to enroll in calculus by the time they complete high school than those with lower test scores. Second, and more importantly for our purposes, the likelihood of taking calculus in high school conditional on middle school math test scores is uniformly higher among those students who took Algebra I no later than eighth grade. Although this pattern may reflect the causal impact of early algebra, it also reflects the likelihood that accelerated students are better prepared than unaccelerated students even after we control for the average of their sixth and seventh grade math scores. For this reason, the vertical distance between the two lines in the chart can be interpreted as an upper bound on the true causal effect of eighth grade algebra. This upper bound is, for many students, quite low. Among students with the best math test scores in middle school, those who take Algebra I in eighth grade proceed to calculus about 80 percent of the time; those who wait until high school still manage to proceed to calculus about 60 percent of the time, presumably because they “double up” on math coursework in one or more high school years. The upper bound on the treatment effect for high-achieving students is thus around 20 percentage points.
For moderately performing students, taking Algebra I in eighth grade improves the chances of taking calculus in high school from the single digits to the teens, suggesting an upper bound for the treatment effect around ten percentage points. Over 80 percent of moderately performing students assigned to algebra courses as eighth graders will fall off track at some point before they reach calculus. Among the lowest-performing students—perhaps a third of whom were assigned to eighth grade Algebra in Guilford County in peak years—there is essentially no chance of proceeding all the way to calculus in high school, regardless of when they take Algebra I.
If Algebra acceleration entails introducing subject matter to students who are not prepared to handle it, one predictable consequence would be an increased failure rate followed by an increased rate of retaking the course. This was our interpretation of the contrasting results in specifications examining Algebra I test scores and pass rates in Table 5. Figure 4 presents a more detailed view, showing evidence on the rate of retaking Algebra I for students who first take the course in eighth grade or earlier, ninth grade, or after ninth grade, as a function of their sixth and seventh grade math test scores. The graph shows that retaking rates tend to be higher among lower-performing students. Moreover, although the differences in retaking rates between those who take Algebra I in ninth grade and those who take it in a higher grade are very small, eighth grade Algebra I takers have a far higher risk of repeating the course at virtually all prior achievement levels. For students around the twentieth percentile of the initial math achievement distribution, the retaking rate is nearly 50 percent for students who attempt the course in middle school, far higher than the 20 percent rate among those who take it in high school. We note that this comparison understates the true treatment effect to the extent the students selected for early algebra are unobservably better performers than their counterparts.
Probability of Repeating Algebra I Conditional on First Taking Algebra I in a Specific Grade, by Percentile Rank of Mean Sixth/Seventh Grade Math Score, Ten District Sample
In sum, our analysis indicates that enrolling the lowest-performing students in early algebra introduces significant downside risks with little to no upside potential. For moderately performing students, the potential rewards are moderate and the downside risk is significant. Students in the upper portion of the initial test score distribution appear to suffer few ill effects beyond the first year, and may in fact benefit from the opportunity to access higher-level math coursework in high school.
VI. Conclusion
Algebra is often described as a “gateway” to higher-level mathematics. Because of the largely hierarchical nature of mathematics instruction, however, the gateway label could equally well be applied to a range of pre-algebra courses, geometry, or any other math subject in the hierarchy. Moreover, policymakers have often incorrectly interpreted the strong positive correlation between taking algebra early and later success as implying that waiting until high school to take it limits students’ opportunities to enroll in the higher-level math courses needed for college. That interpretation is flawed because selection problems make it inappropriate to interpret the observed correlation as a causal relationship. Our empirical evidence, based on a clear policy intervention affecting nearly the entire distribution of students in two large school districts, avoids the selection bias, and shows that early administration of Algebra I—when not preceded by broader reform of the entire math curriculum—significantly weakens performance in that course and in Geometry, the typical followup course.
Our results imply, for example, that California’s abortive initiative to increase the proportion of students taking introductory algebra in eighth grade from 59 percent to 100 percent, absent any wholesale reform in pre-algebra math courses, would have yielded adverse effects. Our results also cast doubt on assignment practices in school districts such as the District of Columbia, in which fourth grade math performance is significantly lower than in CMS based on NAEP assessments, yet eighth grade algebra placement is the norm.
We find substantial evidence that introducing algebra in middle school, rather than serving to equalize student outcomes, exacerbates inequality. Students at or above the sixtieth percentile of the initial achievement distribution appear to suffer more modest setbacks when accelerated and may be as many as 20 percentage points more likely to take a calculus course in high school when they are accelerated. At the lower end of the distribution, since calculus-taking rates are approximately 0 regardless of Algebra I timing, the acceleration introduces costs without offering benefits. Patterns in the middle of the distribution are, not surprisingly, somewhere between these extremes.
One interpretation of these findings is that offering algebra for all eighth graders would be a worthy standard if additional reforms raised the performance of all students to the level where the sixtieth percentile North Carolinian middle school student lies today. More generally, this evaluation illustrates the hazards of basing policy initiatives on simple correlational evidence without first taking steps to assess the validity of causal interpretation.
Appendix
Summary Statistics for Dependent Variables
Footnotes
Charles T. Clotfelter is Z. Smith Reynolds Professor of Public Policy and Professor of Economics and Law at Duke University.
Helen F. Ladd is Edgar Thompson Distinguished Professor of Public Policy and Professor of Economics at Duke University.
Jacob L. Vigdor is Daniel J. Evans Professor of Public Affairs at the University of Washington. The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Institute for Education Sciences and American Institutes for Research through the Center for the Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research. The authors thank seminar participants at Columbia, Notre Dame, the APPAM annual meeting, the CALDER annual research conference, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the University of Illinois-Chicago, and the Association for Education Finance and Policy annual meeting as well as Dan Goldhaber, Nora Gordon, Henry Levin, Gary Solon, and two anonymous referees for helpful comments. Kyle Ott, Alexandra Oprea and Maria Laurito provided outstanding research assistance. The data used in the article can be obtained beginning June 2015 through May 2018.
↵1. Algebra Policy in California: Great Expectations and Serious Challenges, EdSource, May 2009. http://www.noycefdn.org/documents/math/EdSourceReport0609.pdf, 6/19/13. Then-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger referred to algebra as “the key that unlocks the world of science, innovation, engineering, and technology.” See “California to Require Algebra Taught in 8th Grade,” USA Today, July 11, 2008. In the early 2000s, the state led the nation with 59 percent of all eighth grade students enrolled in Algebra (Loveless 2008).
↵2. See, for example, Usiskin (1987), which cites Japan’s success in teaching algebra to seventh graders. In this paper, we use the term algebra to refer generically to a content area in mathematics and Algebra I to refer to the course traditionally taken at the beginning of a college-preparatory math sequence in North Carolina public schools. We similarly distinguish between Geometry courses and the content area known as geometry.
↵3. In 2007, early algebra-taking rates exceeded 50 percent in California, Maryland, Utah, and the District of Columbia (Loveless 2008).
↵4. As discussed below, the clear negative effects of acceleration may explain why the district reversed course.
↵5. The state mandates that at least of the course grade in one of these courses be based on the end-of-course score. See GreatSchools, “Testing in North Carolina,” http://www.greatschools.org/students/local-facts-resources/435-testing-in-NC.gs, 1/11/12.
↵6. Note that admission to the 16-campus University of North Carolina system for most of the cohorts in our study required additional coursework beyond Algebra II.
↵7. Clotfelter, Ladd, and Vigdor (2012a) shows similar sets of findings for high-performing students accelerated into seventh grade algebra, and lower-performing students accelerated into ninth grade algebra.
↵8. See, for example, Burris, Heubert, and Levin (2006), which shows significant positive effects of a math curriculum reform that began the acceleration process in sixth grade. Schoenfeld (1995) advocates spreading the teaching of algebraic concepts throughout the K-12 years.
↵9. Ma (2005b), for example, reports that only 4 percent of students below the sixty-fifth percentile of the seventh grade math distribution are placed in algebra by eighth grade.
↵10. Allensworth et al. (2009) provides evidence that a broad multisubject curricular reform emphasizing placement in college-preparatory coursework in Chicago high schools led to no significant improvement in test scores or college entry rates.
↵11. Beyond improving labor productivity and earnings, math skills may also increase utility by promoting better consumption decisions by boundedly rational agents (Benjamin, Brown, and Shapiro 2013).
↵12. These competencies form the basis for standardized End-of-Grade tests in mathematics conducted since the early 1990s.
↵13. Math A is a high school curriculum used in certain districts used to transition lower achieving students to a college-preparatory algebra and geometry curriculum. The Stretch Regents program permits students to take New York State’s rigorous Regents curriculum at a slower pace. See Gamoran (1997) for further description.
↵14. For reasons explained below, we are unable to include the 1999–2000 cohort for CMS.
↵15. Some of the students included in our sample may have exited the data set because they left North Carolina public schools to attend a private or out-of-state school. If such students completed Geometry or Algebra II coursework, we incorrectly code them in our analysis. Due to differences in student ID coding, we are not always able to track students who transferred from CMS to a different district or to a charter school, which introduces further possibilities for miscoding. Moreover, given data limitations, it is impossible for us to distinguish a student who exits from one who persists without taking EOC exams. This poses a problem for our analysis only to the extent to which transfer behavior correlates with algebra acceleration, conditional on decile and cohort effects. If parents respond to the decline in mathematics performance associated with early algebra by switching to a different school district, we may in fact overstate the effects of acceleration. Note that we are similarly unable to identify students who drop out of school; since students cannot pass EOC exams after dropping out, however, they would not be miscoded.
↵16. Results obtained with a sample restricted to “ever-takers” confirm the existence of this bias (Clotfelter, Ladd, and Vigdor 2012a).
↵17. One might consider the algebra acceleration initiative itself to satisfy the exclusion restriction in a Heckman-style selection model. This would be appropriate only in the event that the acceleration influenced later course taking but was otherwise unrelated to outcomes. This runs contrary to the basic premise of this article. We are unable to identify any observable factor that influences whether a student takes a course that is otherwise unrelated to the student’s performance in that course.
↵18. Our definition of a passing grade on the Algebra I and Algebra II EOC tests is based on the proficiency standard in place for most of the years in our sample, which was roughly equal to the twentieth percentile of the statewide distribution for both tests. In 2007, the state adopted stricter grading standards on both EOC tests, placing the passing threshold closer to the fortieth percentile of the statewide distribution. By using a uniform standard based on a specific point in the distribution, we assume that there is no meaningful change in the statewide distribution of Algebra I or Algebra II test scores over time. As there is no substantial shift in standards on the Geometry EOC test, no comparable adjustment is necessary. In alternative specifications, we also analyzed the propensity to pass mathematics courses within a fixed number of years after first taking Algebra I. Results do not vary substantively across specifications.
↵19. Although our primary concern is that nonaccelerated students would never take Algebra I and thus not enter our sample, we must also be concerned that families may have responded to the acceleration initiative by exiting the affected school systems or otherwise altering their school choices. To assess the potential severity of this problem, we examined attrition rates for two cohorts of CMS seventh graders: the 1999–2000 and 2002–2003 cohorts. One-year and two-year attrition rates for the two cohorts are nearly identical (92.3 percent and 84.7 percent for the first cohort, respectively, and 94.7 percent and 84.8 percent for the second), suggesting that any impact of the policy—or other contemporaneous factors—on attrition is likely to be small. Further analysis shows a similar lack of trend in attrition conditional on prior performance.
↵20. Specifically, we impute standardized test scores of –4 for non-test takers. This procedure may yield biased results to the extent that some students without test scores have omitted data for reasons other than failure to take the course, for example, transfer into a private school. For this reason, we also report the results of specifications using more basic OLS and 2SLS models below.
↵21. Educate!, September 16, 2001, p. 5. As evidence of the superintendent’s focus on increasing the number of middle school students taking algebra, one informant described how he ordered middle school principals to overhaul schedules after the school year had commenced in order to increase the number of middle school students in algebra classes. In an interview after he stepped down as CMS superintendent, Eric Smith stated, “The middle school math piece was the gatekeeper and it is the gatekeeper. It’s the definition of what the rest of the child’s life is going to look like academically, not just through high school but into college and beyond. If they make it into algebra one, the likelihood of getting into the AP class and being successful on the SAT and having a vision of going on to college is dramatically enhanced. And so our pressure to make sure that kids were given that kind of access to upper level math in middle school was a critical component of our overall district strategy.”
21. http://www.pbs.org/makingschoolswork/dwr/nc/smith.html, 4/5/11.
↵22. The superintendent was Terry Grier. Personal conversation with former school board member Dot Kearns, 8/5/13.
↵23. These data are provided by the North Carolina Education Research Data Center. Note that in order to define outcome variables for these students we need to be able to trace them up to six years after entering seventh grade. The 1999–2000 cohort in Charlotte-Mecklenburg is omitted from this study because of problems with the unique identifiers in that district in the base year.
↵24. Note that we formally define taking Algebra I as having a valid score on the state’s end-of-course (EOC) examination. The EOC examination is a required component of the course. A small number of students appear in the Algebra I EOC data file without a valid score; these students are excluded from the sample. Those students who are observable in administrative records but do not have an Algebra I EOC test score are presumed to have not completed the course.
↵25. Students who never take Algebra I would presumably earn lower scores on the test if they did, and would also presumably be less likely to take the course by eighth grade. Note that in addition to students who never take Algebra I, the test score equation excludes approximately 250 students who appear in EOC test records with a missing value for the score. These students are included in specifications that impute scores for nontakers below and are treated equivalently to nontakers. The EOC data also contain records for students who are coded as exempt from testing. We exclude these students from all specifications.
↵26. Note that adverse impacts on students in higher-performing deciles—the effects studied by Nomi (2010)—would be less of a concern here.
↵27. Note that the cohort entering seventh grade in CMS in 1999–2000 is omitted from this study. Student records for that cohort are unlinkable for the full duration of the panel because of a switch in ID codes affecting that cohort.
↵28. Our data are derived from end-of-course test records, which may not accurately measure the number of students assigned to take Algebra I in a given year. Students may withdraw from the course in advance of test administration, for example. There is some evidence that the rate of withdrawal rose in 2002–2003 along with the rate of course taking. In that year, an administrative count of course enrollment in Algebra I for CMS enumerates over 900 students for whom we have no test score record. In most other years, the discrepancy between the two sources of enrollment data is small. We discuss potential implications of this pattern below.
↵29. For purposes of our analysis, we consider the following students in the seventh grade entering cohorts of 2001–2002 through 2004–2005, in the lowest 8 deciles, as “treated.” Figures 1 and 2 illustrate that these cohort/decile cells receive varying “doses” of acceleration; however, our formulation of the first stage equation effectively accounts for differential dosage across cells—for example, the fact that not all of the “accelerated” cohorts are equally accelerated.
↵30. Clotfelter, Ladd, and Vigdor (2012a; 2012b) shows that bivariate probit versions of models with binary outcomes tend to generate qualitatively and quantitatively similar results.
↵31. Technically, the dependent variable measures whether a student has taken the Algebra I EOC exam within two years after beginning seventh grade.
↵32. Estimation by 2SLS, without imputing test scores for nontakers, yields a slightly larger coefficient. Given that acceleration coincided with an increase in the overall taking rate, this is the expected pattern if marginal algebra takers are negatively selected on unobservables. In additional specifications, we examined the effect of algebra acceleration on the eighth grade end-of-grade mathematics test, which is administered to all eighth grade students regardless of course enrollment. We found no significant effects, suggesting that any gain to eighth graders from enrolling in Algebra I are offset by weaker mastery of nonalgebraic subjects covered on the EOG test.
↵33. These specifications use the same set of instruments as earlier IV models, but with four separate first-stage regressions representing the four endogenous interaction terms. Clotfelter, Ladd, and Vigdor (2012b) reports additional specifications regarding differential impacts of acceleration by gender, parent education, and free/reduced lunch status. These indicate that the impact of acceleration is more harmful for female students and students with less-educated parents. Effects on free/reduced lunch participants are more harmful in terms of test scores but less harmful in terms of passing subsequent courses.
- Received August 2013.
- Accepted February 2014.
References
This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Log in using your username and password
Purchase access
In this issue
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.