Inequity by Design? Aligning High School Math Offerings and Public Flagship College Entrance Requirements
Inequity by Design? Aligning High School Math Offerings and Public Flagship College Entrance Requirements
复制标题
设计不平等？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2018
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Awilda Rodriguez
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Awilda Rodriguez
许多人呼吁改善高中毕业和大学入学要求之间的一致性。然而，很少有人对高中不提供大学入学所需课程的程度进行实证调查，我称之为“不协调”。我利用民权办公室（Office for Civil Rights）提供的高中水平的数据，研究了高中数学与公立旗舰学校公布的最低数学要求之间的差距。总体而言，2.2%的公立高中不提供各自州旗舰学校入学所需的数学课程。因为最低要求可能不能反映出竞争激烈的录取过程，比如在选择性旗舰学校或科学、技术、工程和数学（STEM）专业中发现的那些，我估计了两个额外的基准：根据旗舰学校的选择性可能的数学要求，以及进入STEM专业最常见的最高数学课程。当考虑可能的和STEM数学基准时，不一致的高中分别为6.9%和29.0%。逻辑回归分析的结果显示，与大多数其他类型的高中相比，低收入有色人种学生高中在所有三个基准上的学校特征和州一级的固定效应的净影响下，有更高的不适应可能性。讨论了改善一致性和公平性的政策含义。
ABSTRACT Many have called for improved alignment between high school graduation and college admission requirements. However, few have empirically examined the extent to which courses needed for college admission are not offered by high schools, which I call underalignment. Using high school-level data from the Office for Civil Rights, I examined high school math underalignment relative to public flagships’ published minimum math requirements. Overall, 2.2% of public high schools did not offer the math course required for admission by their respective state flagship. Because minimum requirements may not reflect competitive admission processes such as those found at selective flagships or for intended science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors, I estimated 2 additional benchmarks: the probable math requirement based on the flagship’s selectivity and the highest math course most commonly taken by entering STEM majors. When considering probable and STEM math benchmarks, underalignment was higher—6.9% and 29.0% of high schools, respectively. Findings from logistic regression analysis show low-income student-of-color high schools have a higher probability of underalignment compared with most other high school types, net of school characteristics and state-level fixed effects across all three benchmarks. Policy implications for improving alignment and equity are discussed.