《蘭德公司：美國數學教育研究：2024年技術文件和調查結果報告（英文版）（19頁）.pdf》由會員分享，可在線閱讀，更多相關《蘭德公司：美國數學教育研究：2024年技術文件和調查結果報告（英文版）（19頁）.pdf（19頁珍藏版）》請在三個皮匠報告上搜索。

1、Research ReportJONATHAN SCHWEIG,RAKESH PANDEY,DAVID GRANT,JULIA H.KAUFMAN,ELIZABETH D.STEINER,DOROTHY SEAMANAmerican Mathematics Educator Study2024 Technical Documentation and Survey ResultsFor more information on this publication,visit www.rand.org/t/RRA2836-4.About RANDRAND is a research organizat

2、ion that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure,healthier and more prosperous.RAND is nonprofit,nonpartisan,and committed to the public interest.To learn more about RAND,visit www.rand.org.Research IntegrityOur mission to he

3、lp improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior.To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous,objective,and nonpartisan,we sub

4、ject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process;avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training,project screening,and a policy of mandatory disclosure;and pursue transparency in our research engagements throu

5、gh our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations,disclosure of the source of funding of published research,and policies to ensure intellectual independence.For more information,visit www.rand.org/about/research-integrity.RANDs publications do not necessarily ref

6、lect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.Published by the RAND Corporation,Santa Monica,Calif.2024 RAND Corporation is a registered trademark.Print and Electronic Distribution RightsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.All users of the pu

7、blication are permitted to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and transform and build upon the material,including for any purpose(including commercial)without further permission or fees being required.iii About This Report This technical report provides detailed information a

8、bout the sample,survey instruments,and resultant data for the 2024 American Mathematics Educator Study(AMES)surveys that were administered to principals and teachers in spring 2024 via the RAND Corporations American Educator Panels(AEP).The AEP are nationally representative samples of teachers,schoo

9、l leaders,and district leaders across the United States.The panels are a proud member of the American Association for Public Opinion Researchs Transparency Initiative.The 2024 AMES surveys investigate students access to high-quality mathematics learning opportunities from elementary school all the w

10、ay through college and career pathways in high school and the obstacles that stand in the way of providing these opportunities to all students(and,particularly,Black,Hispanic,and lower-income students).The results are intended to inform policy and education practice related to mathematics education.

11、If you are interested in using AEP data for your own surveys or analysis or in reading other publications related to the AEP,please email aeprand.org or visit www.rand.org/aep.RAND Education and Labor This study was undertaken by RAND Education and Labor,a division of RAND that conducts research on

12、early childhood through postsecondary education programs,workforce development,and programs and policies affecting workers,entrepreneurship,and financial literacy and decisionmaking.This report is based on research funded by the Bill&Melinda Gates Foundation.The findings and conclusions presented ar

13、e those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect positions or policies of the foundation.For more information and research on these and other related topics,please visit gatesfoundation.org.More information about RAND can be found at www.rand.org.Questions about this technical report or about t

14、he AMES project should be directed to jkaufmanrand.org or esteinerrand.org,and questions about RAND Education and Labor should be directed to educationandlaborrand.org.This document contains recycled text from previous AEP technical documentation in regard to AEP methods,as well as from the 2023 tec

15、hnical documentation for the first administration of the AMES surveys(Schweig et al.,2023).Acknowledgments We are extremely grateful to the U.S.public school teachers and leaders who agreed to participate in the panels.Their time and willingness to share their experiences are invaluable for this eff

16、ort and for helping us understand more about how to better support their hard work in schools.We also iv thank our reviewer,Ben Master,for helpful feedback that improved this report.We are grateful to the Bill&Melinda Gates Foundation for its collaboration and feedback on our surveys and analysis.We

17、 thank Brian Kim and Dan Ibarrola for serving as the survey managers for this survey.We thank Julie Newell and Tim Colvin for programming the surveys.We thank Ruolin Lu for serving as the data manager for this survey.We also greatly appreciate the administrative support provided by Tina Petrossian.F

18、inally,we thank Anna Bloom for her editorial expertise and Monette Velasco for overseeing the publication process for this report.v Contents About This Report.iiiTables.vi American Mathematics Educator Study Surveys:2024 Technical Documentation.1The 2024 American Mathematics Educator Study Surveys.1

19、Survey Administration and Content.2Survey Completion Results.4Calibrated Weighting.7 Abbreviations.10References.11 Available at www.rand.org/t/RRA2836-4 ANNEXES I.American Mathematics Educator Study Survey:Annex I,Descriptive Results for 2024 Teacher Survey Items II.American Mathematics Educator Stu

20、dy Survey:Annex II,Descriptive Results for 2024 School Leader Survey Items vi Tables Table 1.AMES ATP and ASLP Survey Content Areas.4Table 2.Descriptive Statistics for AMES ASLP Survey Respondents.5Table 3.Descriptive Statistics for AMES ATP Survey Respondents.6 1 American Mathematics Educator Study

21、 Surveys:2024 Technical Documentation This technical report provides detailed information about the sample,survey instruments,and resultant data for the 2024 American Mathematics Educator Study(AMES)surveys,which were administered in spring 2024 to a sample of teachers and school leaders within RAND

22、s American Educator Panels(AEP).The AMES surveys were administered for the first time in 2023 and will be administered again each spring through 2027.The AMES investigates students access to high-quality mathematics learning opportunities from elementary school all the way through college and career

23、 pathways in high school and the obstacles that stand in the way of providing these opportunities to all students(particularly Black,Hispanic,and lower-income students).The AEP consist of the American Teacher Panel(ATP),the American School Leader Panel(ASLP),and the American School District Panel(AS

24、DP).These panels are nationally representative samples of K12 public school educators and leaders.The ATP includes more than 25,000 teachers,the ASLP includes more than 8,000 school principals,and the ASDP includes more than 1,000 district leaders(e.g.,superintendents).Panelists respond to numerous

25、online survey requests each year.The AEP began in 2014 and expanded significantly during the 20162017 and 20172018 school years(Robbins and Grant,2020).Since 2014,RAND has recruited AEP members using probabilistic sampling methods.The AEP samples are designed to be of sufficient size to facilitate n

26、ational analyses and analyses of prevalent subgroups at the national level(e.g.,elementary school teachers,high school mathematics teachers,teachers in urban schools).Similarly,the ATP is designed to permit state-representative analyses of responses among teachers in more than 25 states and the Dist

27、rict of Columbia.All AEP surveys are conducted online and in English.The 2024 American Mathematics Educator Study Surveys Results from the 2022 National Assessment of Educational Progress(NAEP)and other research are clear:U.S.students have lost more learning in mathematics and other subjects over th

28、e past few years than has ever before been measured.NAEP mathematics scores for students in grades 4 and 8 reflected record declines,with the largest decreases among students experiencing poverty and students of color(Nations Report Card,undated).According to the Education Recovery Scorecard,which d

29、rew on NAEP and spring 2022 assessment data,the average U.S.public school student has lost a half year of mathematics learning since the coronavirus disease 2019(COVID-19)pandemic started in early 2020(Fahle et al.,2024).The COVID-19 pandemic is just the most recent force widening 2 mathematics achi

30、evement gaps.Other obstacles to high-quality mathematics learning for all studentsparticularly for Black,Hispanic,and lower-income studentsinclude inequitable access to and participation in rigorous mathematics courses(Gamoran and Hannigan,2000;Walston and Carlivati McCarroll,2010;Wolfe,Steiner,and

31、Schweig,2023),tracking of students in classes based on their achievement level(Gamoran et al.,1997;Kaufman et al.,2012;Oakes et al.,1990;Schmidt,2009),and inadequate mathematics instructional materials and supports for teachers(Cogan,Schmidt,and Wiley,2001;Doan,Kaufman,et al.,2022;Short and Hirsh,20

32、20).However,there are critical gaps in what we know to ensure high-quality,equitable mathematics learning for all students.In response,RAND researchers have administered the AMES surveys to a sample of ATP and ASLP members who work in K12 public schools annually in the spring,starting in 2023 and co

33、ntinuing through 2027.Findings across these surveys are intended to provide insights on critical factors that might influence teachers mathematics instruction and students mathematics learning experiences,from mathematics courses and curriculum materials to teachers preparation and professional lear

34、ning resources,among many other topics described in more detail in Table 1.This technical document is for the spring 2024 survey.The technical document for the spring 2023 survey(Schweig et al.,2023)is available on the AMES website(RAND,undated),along with all RAND reports and webinars that use AMES

35、 data.As in 2023,the AMES 2024 ATP sample targeted K12 public school teachers who reported teaching mathematics.Geographically,the sample was designed to produce 400 completed surveys each in four states(California,Florida,New York,and Texas)and 1,500 completed surveys among all other states for a t

36、otal of 3,100 surveys(see the“Survey Completion Results”section for details about completion rates).These sampling targets were selected to balance estimate precision,available sample,and ATP recruitment costs.As in 2023,the AMES 2024 ASLP sample targeted principals serving in schools at all K12 gra

37、de levels;there were oversamples of principals in the same four states as those oversampled for the ATP:California,Florida,New York and Texas.In addition,ASLP captured oversamples of high school principals in two states:Texas and Washington.We focused specifically on Texas and Washington to track in

38、vestments by the survey sponsor in these states.Geographically,the sample was designed to produce 400 completed surveys each from K12 public school principals in California,Florida,New York,and Texas;an additional 100 completed surveys from high school principals in Texas;100 completed surveys from

39、high school principals in Washington;and 1,500 completed surveys across all other states for a total of 3,300 surveys(see“Survey Completion Results”section for details about completion rates).The additional high school principals surveyed in Texas and Washington were included specifically to improve

40、 the precision of estimates from the postsecondary pathways section of AMES.Survey eligibility was limited to current school leaders.Annexes to this report with the full descriptive results for the 2024 school leader survey and 2024 teacher survey are available at www.rand.org/t/RRA2836-4.Survey Adm

41、inistration and Content We developed the AMES surveys in consultation with funders(see the“About This Report”section earlier in this report)and a variety of experts on mathematics education.Experts and funders 3 provided feedback on question wording,format,and sequencing,and RAND maintained final ed

42、itorial control of the survey items.The surveys were designed to generate nationally representative data on K12 teacher and principal perspectives regarding the topics listed in Table 1 in addition to state-representative data for teachers and principals in select states.Many survey items were devel

43、oped by RAND,but the surveys also borrowed items(with permission)from several other sources.The annexes to this report include notes on items taken from or adapted from non-RAND sources.1 In addition,items were borrowed or adapted from prior RAND surveys(Doan,Eagen,et al.,2022;Doan,Zuo,et al.,2022;S

44、teiner,Hamilton,et al.,2020;Steiner,Kaufman,et al.,2020;Young et al.,2021).The data generated from the surveys are intended to be used by researchers and state education agencies in the four states with teacher and principal oversamples.State education agencies in these four states can compare the r

45、esponses of teachers and principals from their states with a nationally representative comparison group.The AMES ATP survey had an approximate administration time of 15 minutes.Respondents were assigned to sections based on their responses to questions at the beginning of the survey about their grad

46、e band(K5,68,or 912).To ensure an adequate number of grades 68 teachers in the AMES ATP sample,if a respondent indicated teaching any grade 68,they were assigned the grades 68 path.If a respondent indicated teaching any grade K5 and 912,but not 68,they were randomly assigned to either the grades K5

47、or grades 912 path.2 The AMES ASLP survey had an approximate administration time of 15 minutes(with an additional five minutes for administering the College and Career Pathways questions to principals leading schools serving grades 912).Similar to the ATP survey,AMES ASLP sample members were assigne

48、d to the grades 68 path if they indicated leading a school serving any grade 68 and were randomly assigned to the grades K5 or grades 912 path if they indicated leading a school serving any grade K5 and 912 but not 68.3 Table 1 presents a summary of the content areas that were included in each surve

49、y.1 Non-RAND sources were National Center for Education Statistics(NCES),2009;Impact Research,2023;and Yeager,2021.2 Respondents were assigned sections to reduce overall survey burden.In total,there were 68 teachers who indicated teaching grades K5 and 68 who were assigned to the grades 68 path;34 t

50、eachers who indicated teaching grades 68 and 912 who were assigned to the grades 68 path;six teachers who indicated teaching grades K5,68,and 912 who were assigned to the grades 68 path;and one teacher who was randomly assigned to the grades 912 path.3 Respondents were assigned sections to reduce ov

51、erall survey burden.In total,there were 545 principals who indicated working in schools that served grades K5 and 68 who were assigned to the grades 68 path;203 principals who indicated working in schools that served grades 68 and 912 who were assigned to the grades 68 path;171 principals who indica

52、ted working in schools that served grades K5,68,and 912 who were assigned to the grades 68 path;and three principals who were randomly assigned to the grades K5 path.4 Table 1.AMES ATP and ASLP Survey Content Areas Content Area Asked in ATP Asked in ASLP School and teaching context X X Student mathe

53、matics experience and mindset and identity X Instruction X Instructional resources X X Professional learning and development X X Teacher preparation X District and school leadership and school culture and norms X X Data-informed improvement X School-community collaboration X Teachers and teachers wo

54、rkforce X X Principal support of mathematics instruction X Student access and opportunity X College and career pathways X (high school principals only)Principal or teacher background X X Survey Completion Results American School Leader Panel The 2024 AMES yielded 2,272 completed responses and 270 pa

55、rtial responses from a sample of 6,761 ASLP members;103 panelists were screened out because they did not meet eligibility requirements.After review,2,340 of these cases were weighted as part of the final data file.4 After removing screened cases from the 6,761 invitations for school leaders,the fina

56、l completion rate,following conventions defined by the American Association for Public Opinion Research(2016),was 35.1 percent.Table 2 provides weighted descriptive statistics for ASLP survey respondents.The weights,which are described in the following section,are intended to ensure that the sample

57、reflects the national population of school leaders.Supplemental Principal Sample Our panels did not have an adequate sample to produce the target number of completed principal surveys in the oversample states.To avoid exhausting the supply of principals in these states over the 4 Weighting procedure

58、s are described in detail in the“Calibrated Weighting”section of this report.5 course of this five-year project,a supplemental principal sample was drawn to increase the number of completed principal surveys.The supplemental group was sampled using several vendors and used the same eligibility crite

59、ria as principals invited to join the ASLP(public K12 school principals leading“regular”schools,as defined by NCES 1999,p.350).The supplemental sample was limited to the five principal oversample states and was deduplicated to ensure that current ASLP members were not invited,nor were principals who

60、 were recruited to join the panels in the past two school years.The supplemental sample included 5,620 principals.There were 1,195 fully completed and 342 partially completed AMES surveys generated by the supplemental sample,with 27 invitees screened out because they did not meet eligibility require

61、ments.Of these cases,1,291 received a weight and were included in the data file.The response rate for the supplemental sample was 23.1 percent.Across the ASLP and Supplemental Principal samples,the total AMES sample size was 3,631 school leaders.Table 2.Descriptive Statistics for AMES ASLP Survey Re

62、spondents Variable Percentage Unweighted CI Weighted CI Population Degree Masters or lower 55.5 53.8,57.1 56.0 54.4,57.7 56.1 More than masters 44.5 42.9,46.2 44.0 42.3,45.6 43.9 School level Elementary(K5)49.0 47.4,50.6 58.7 57.1,60.3 58.8 Middle(68)21.8 20.5,23.2 18.2 16.9,19.4 18.2 High(912)29.2

63、27.7,30.6 23.1 21.7,24.5 23.0 Percentage of students who are eligible to receive FRPL 0%50%46.5 44.9,48.2 45.2 43.6,46.8 45.1 51%100%53.5 51.8,55.1 54.8 53.2,56.4 54.9 Percentage of students of color in school 0%50%48.4 46.7,50.0 51.7 50.1,53.4 51.7 51%100%51.6 50.0,53.3 48.3 46.6,49.9 48.3 School s

64、ize Small 43.8 42.2,45.4 50.7 49.1,52.4 50.8 Large 56.2 54.6,57.8 49.3 47.6,50.9 49.2 School locale Suburban 33.8 32.3,35.4 31.7 30.2,33.2 31.7 Town/rural 38.5 36.9,40.1 41.5 39.9,43.1 41.5 Urban 27.7 26.2,29.2 26.8 25.3,28.2 26.8 6 Variable Percentage Unweighted CI Weighted CI Population Gender Fem

65、ale 52.7 51.1,54.4 55.7 54.0,57.3 55.7 Male 47.3 45.6,48.9 44.3 42.7,46.0 44.3 Race Other 26.1 24.7,27.5 21.8 20.5,23.2 21.9 White 73.9 72.5,75.3 78.2 76.8,79.5 78.1 NOTE:Ninety-fivepercent confidence intervals are presented in the brackets.CI=confidence interval;FRPL=free or reduced-price lunch.Ame

66、rican Teacher Panel The 2024 AMES yielded 3,114 completed responses and 304 partial responses.After excluding surveys in which respondents answered fewer than 10 percent of the questions,a total of 3,161 cases received a weight.Among teachers who responded to the survey,405 were determined to be ine

67、ligible(e.g.,no longer a math teacher,switched to a private school,retired).5 After removing screened cases from the 6,682 invitations for teachers,the final completion rate,following conventions defined by the American Association for Public Opinion Research,was 50.4 percent.Table 3 provides weight

68、ed descriptive statistics for ATP survey respondents.The weights,which are described in the next section,are intended to ensure the sample reflects the national population of teachers.Table 3.Descriptive Statistics for AMES ATP Survey Respondents Variable Percentage Unweighted CI Weighted CI Populat

69、ion Experience Less than 10 years 24.5 23.0,26.0 35.7 34.0,37.3 35.8 10 years or more 75.5 74.0,77.0 64.3 62.7,66.0 64.2 School level Elementary(K5)66.5 64.9,68.2 74.9 73.4,76.4 75.0 Middle(68)15.0 13.8,16.3 10.7 9.7,11.8 10.7 High(912)18.4 17.1,19.8 14.3 13.1,15.5 14.3 5 Teachers could not screen i

70、nto the survey(e.g.,teachers initially classified as fine arts teachers who had switched to mathematics during the time of survey administration)because these teachers would not have been invited to complete the survey on the basis of their initial classification.As a result,some level of undercover

71、age might exist;eligible teachers may be misclassified as out of scope.7 Variable Percentage Unweighted CI Weighted CI Population Percentage of students who are eligible to receive FRPL 0%50%44.8 43.0,46.5 45.1 43.4,46.9 45.1 50%100%55.2 53.5,57.0 54.9 53.1,56.6 54.9 Percentage of students of color

72、in school 0%50%40.6 38.8,42.3 45.8 44.1,47.6 45.8 50%100%59.4 57.7,61.2 54.2 52.4,55.9 54.2 School size Small 30.5 28.9,32.1 35.9 34.2,37.6 35.9 Large 69.5 67.9,71.1 64.1 62.4,65.8 64.1 School locale Suburban 40.0 38.3,41.7 39.0 37.3,40.7 39.0 Town/Rural 27.0 25.5,28.6 31.6 29.9,33.2 31.6 Urban 33.0

73、 31.3,34.6 29.4 27.9,31.0 29.4 Gender Female 82.5 81.2,83.9 83.5 82.2,84.8 83.5 Male 17.5 16.1,18.8 16.5 15.2,17.8 16.5 Race Black 6.6 5.7,7.4 6.9 6.1,7.8 7.0 Hispanic 11.5 10.3,12.6 10.5 9.4,11.6 10.6 White 75.8 74.3,77.3 79.5 78.1,80.9 79.4 Other 6.2 5.4,7.0 3.1 2.5,3.7 3.0 NOTE:Ninety-fivepercent

74、 confidence intervals are presented in the brackets.Calibrated Weighting The 2024 AMES data files include weights to produce estimates that reflect the national population of public school teachers and principals in the United States and state-specific populations in four oversampled states during t

75、he 20232024 school year.The weighting process accounts for the probability of selection into the survey from the panel and the likelihood that an invited teacher or principal will complete the survey.These likelihoods are calibrated to reproduce the population distribution of K12 teachers and princi

76、pals;state-specific calibrations were performed in oversampled states.The nonresponse adjustment is important to eliminate known sources of bias and ensure that the weighted sample matches the national characteristics of educators at the individual and 8 school levels.This weighting approach is wide

77、ly used for probability sample surveys and to adjust for nonresponse,including for such U.S.Department of Education surveys as the Teacher Follow-Up Survey.The final analysis weights are the product of the following three interim weights:1.The calibrated weight of the ATP/ASLP sampling frame.This is

78、 a calibration weight that assigns a weight for each ATP/ASLP member based on individual-and school-level characteristics so that the sum of the weights along the calibration factors closely matches the characteristics of the national population of teachers and principals based on the Schools and St

79、affing Survey and the Common Core of Data(NCES,undated),which are both from the NCES,and the state-specific population of teachers and principals in oversampled states.6(See Robbins and Grant,2020,for more information.)2.The sample selection weight.This is the inverse probability of selection into t

80、he 2024 AMES sample using the ATP/ASLP as the frame.These probabilities were selected to achieve the goals of 3,100 completed ATP surveys and 3,300 completed ASLP surveys.These weights are used to account for the differential probability that respondents are invited to and enrolled in the ATP/ASLP.3

81、.The survey response weight.This is the inverse of the modeled probability of a teacher or principal completing the survey.These weights are used to account for the differential probability that respondents complete the 2024 AMES,conditional on being invited to complete the 2024 AMES.We subsequently

82、 recalibrated and trimmed the products of these weights as necessary.Recalibration ensures that the weights recover the population estimates after selection and nonresponse adjustments are applied.The sampling and weighting approach was designed to ensure a representative sample and limit the size o

83、f the design effect.We calculated the sampling frame weights to make the panel match the national population of teachers and principals based on several school-level(e.g.,school size,level,urbanicity)and individual-level(e.g.,gender,experience)characteristics.The inverse of the selection probabiliti

84、es(psi)was used as the sample selection weight.We estimated the response weights by modeling the likelihood(pri)that a selected participant would respond to the survey,conditional on the school-level and individual-level characteristics of teachers and principals(including the states in which they w

85、ere working).For parsimony,we used a variable-selection method to choose the model that best fit the data.7 We estimated the main weight as the product of the sampling frame calibration weight(1/pfi),the sample selection weight(1/psi),and the response weight(1/pri)as follows:6 For the ASLP,calibrati

86、on weights are based on characteristics reported in Table 2:degree,school level,percentage of students who receive FRPL,percentage of students of color,school size,school locale,gender,and race.For the ATP,calibration weights are based on characteristics reported in Table 3:experience,school level,p

87、ercentage of students who receive FRPL,percentage of students of color,school size,school locale,gender,and race.7 Nonresponse models employ logistic regression to infer response probabilities.The same variables used for the calibration weights are used in the initial specification of the nonrespons

88、e model.To avoid overfitting,we sequentially run models using all possible combinations of covariates and then use information criteria(specifically the Akaike Information Criterion AIC and Bayesian Information Criterion)to appraise model fit.Ultimately,we use the most parsimonious model with the lo

89、west AIC for nonresponse probability prediction.9 Main Weight=1pfi!1psi!1pri!.8 Because there is no guarantee that this main weight sums up to the total of all the population characteristics,it was calibrated again using the same characteristics as the initial calibration to obtain the final weight.

90、If some of these final weights were extreme within sampling states,a trimming process(at the 95th percentile)was used to reduce the outliers,and the trimmed weights were reallocated for the population totals to remain the same after trimming.9 The survey weights included in the 2024 AMES are intende

91、d to facilitate cross-sectional(e.g.,current-year)analysis of teacher and school leader responses to the surveys.Cross-sectional comparisons of estimates across the AMES surveys that we have administered in 2023 and 2024,along with those we plan to administer in 2025 through 2027,will be useful for

92、observing shifts in national,descriptive trends,but these weights were not designed to conduct longitudinal analyses among the same teachers over time(i.e.,they do not account for panel members who do and do not complete the AMES in multiple years).8 The response weight is the sole basis of the main

93、 weight for the supplemental principal sample,which assumes a calibration weight and sample selection weight of 1 for all supplemental principals absent better estimates.9 Replicate weights were not produced for the AMES data files;variance estimation using the provided single weight should suffice.

94、We made this decision after calculating variance with and without replication and determined that differences in the standard errors were negligible.If analysts of these data need to estimate variance using replication,syntax for an alternative variance estimation method(jackknife)is available on re

95、quest.10 Abbreviations AEP American Educator Panels AMES American Mathematics Educator Study ASLP American School Leader Panel ATP American Teacher Panel FRPL free or reduced-price lunch NCES National Center for Education Statistics 11 References American Association for Public Opinion Research,Stan

96、dard Definitions:Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys,9th ed.,2016.Cogan,Leland S.,William H.Schmidt,and David E.Wiley,“Who Takes What Math and in Which Track?Using TIMSS to Characterize U.S.Students Eighth-Grade Mathematics Learning Opportunities,”Educational Evaluation an

97、d Policy Analysis,Vol.23,No.4,Winter 2001.Doan,Sy,Joshua Eagan,David Grant,Julia H.Kaufman,and Claude Messan Setodji,American Instructional Resources Surveys:2022 Technical Documentation and Survey Results,RAND Corporation,RR-A134-14,2022.As of August 4,2023:https:/www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports

98、/RRA134-14.html Doan,Sy,Julia H.Kaufman,Ashley Woo,Andrea Prado Tuma,Melissa Kay Diliberti,and Sabrina Lee,How States Are Creating Conditions for Use of High-Quality Instructional Materials in K12 Classrooms:Findings from the 2021 American Instructional Resources Survey,RAND Corporation,RR-A134-13,2

99、022.As of October 12,2023:https:/www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA134-13.html Doan,Sy,George Zuo,Elizabeth D.Steiner,and David Grant,Learn Together Surveys:2022 Technical Documentation and Survey Results,RAND Corporation,RR-A827-9,2022.As of July 15,2023:https:/www.rand.org/pubs/research_report

100、s/RRA827-9.html Fahle,Erin,Thomas J.Kane,Sean F.Reardon,and Douglas O.Staiger,The First Year of Pandemic Recovery:A District-Level Analysis,Education Recovery Scorecard,Harvard University Center for Education Policy Research,and the Educational Opportunity Project at Stanford University,January 2024

101、.Gamoran,Adam,and Eileen C.Hannigan,“Algebra for Everyone?Benefits of College-Preparatory Mathematics for Students with Diverse Abilities in Early Secondary School,”Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,Vol.22,No.3,January 2000.Gamoran,Adam,Andrew C.Porter,John Smithson,and Paula A.White,“Upgra

102、ding High School Mathematics Instruction:Improving Learning Opportunities for Low-Achieving,Low-Income Youth,”Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,Vol.19,No.4,Winter 1997.Impact Research,“Americans See Need to Better Prepare Students for National Security Careers of the Future,”memorandum,July

103、 18,2023.Kaufman,Julia H.,Rita Karam,John F.Pane,and Brian W.Junker,“How Curriculum and Classroom Achievement Predict Teacher Time on Lecture-and Inquiry-Based Mathematics Activities,”Journal of Mathematics Education at Teachers College,Vol.3,No.2,FallWinter 2012.National Center for Education Statis

104、tics,“Common Core of Data,”webpage,undated.As of October 24,2024:https:/nces.ed.gov/ccd/12 National Center for Education Statistics,The Condition of Education,U.S.Department of Education,Office of Educational Research and Improvement,NCES 1999-022,1999.National Center for Education Statistics,“High

105、School Longitudinal Study of 2009,”U.S.Department of Education,OMB No.1850-0852,2009.Nations Report Card,“Reading and Mathematics Scores Decline During COVID-19 Pandemic,”webpage,undated.As of June 22,2023:https:/www.nationsreportcard.gov/highlights/ltt/2022/NCESSee National Center for Education Sta

106、tistics.Oakes,Jeannie,Tor Ormseth,Robert M.Bell,and Patricia Camp,Multiplying Inequalities:The Effects of Race,Social Class,and Tracking on Opportunities to Learn Mathematics and Science,RAND Corporation,R-3928-NSF,1990.As of October 12,2023:https:/www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R3928.html RAND,“American

107、 Mathematics Educator Study,”webpage,undated.As of October 17,2024:https:/www.rand.org/education-and-labor/projects/american-mathematics-educator-study.html Robbins,Michael W.,and David Matthew Grant,RAND American Educator Panels Technical Description,RAND Corporation,RR-3104-BMGF,2020.As of Septemb

108、er 30,2021:https:/www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3104.html Schmidt,William H.,Exploring the Relationship Between Content Coverage and Achievement:Unpacking the Meaning of Tracking in Eighth Grade Mathematics,Education Policy Center at Michigan State University,2009.Schweig,Jonathan,Rakesh Pand

109、ey,David Grant,Julia H.Kaufman,Elizabeth D.Steiner,and Dorothy Seaman,American Mathematics Educator Survey:2023 Technical Documentation and Survey Results,RAND Corporation,RR-A2836-1,2023.As of October 17,2024:https:/www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2836-1.html Short,Jim,and Stephanie Hirsh,The

110、 Elements:Transforming Teaching Through Curriculum-Based Professional Learning,Carnegie Corporation of New York,November 19,2020.Steiner,Elizabeth D.,Laura S.Hamilton,John F.Pane,Jonathan Schweig,Laura Stelitano,Joseph D.Pane,and Sophie Meyers,Building and Sustaining Innovative High Schools:Findings

111、 from the Opportunity by Design Study,RAND Corporation,RR-A322-3,2020.As of July 15,2023:https:/www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA322-3.html Steiner,Elizabeth D.,Julia H.Kaufman,Elaine Wang,Karen Christianson,Laura S.Hamilton,Sophie Meyers,and Alyssa Ramos,User Guide for the Measuring and Improv

112、ing Student-Centered Learning Toolkit,Nellie Mae Education Foundation and RAND Corporation,2020.Walston,Jill,and Jill Carlivati McCarroll,Eighth-Grade Algebra:Findings from the Eighth-Grade Round of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study,Kindergarten Class of 199899(ECLS-K),National Center for Educa

113、tion Statistics,October 2010.Wolfe,Rebecca L.,Elizabeth D.Steiner,and Jonathan Schweig,Getting Students to(and Through)Advanced Math:Where Course Offerings and Content Are Not Adding Up,RAND Corporation,RR-A827-10,2023.As of October 12,2023:https:/www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA827-10.html 13

114、 Yeager,David S.,The National Study of Learning Mindsets,United States,20152016(ICPSR 37353),Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research,August 31,2021.Young,Christopher J.,Sy Doan,David Grant,Lucas Greer,Maria-Paz Fernandez,Elizabeth D.Steiner,and Matt Strawn,Learn Together Surveys:2021 Technical Documentation and Survey Results,RAND Corporation,RR-A827-2,2021.As of July 15,2023:https:/www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA827-2.html