The National Average is a D: Who is to Blame?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15362/ijbs.v14i0.102Abstract
The publishing of the Bahamas General Certificate of Secondary Education (RGCSE) 2005 examination results sparked much debate about the national average being a D. Much of the debate was focused on the teacher and the school whilst very little was said about the other contributors to achievement in education. In her 1999 study of 1,036 students and 52 teachers from public and private schools in New Providence, Collie-Patterson found the students' characteristics consisting of student's prior ability, attitude toward school, socioeconomic status and parental involvement make the largest contribution (60%) to mathematics achievement. Taken individually, the effect size indicated that student's prior ability made the largest contribution (48%) to mathematics achievement. The set of teachers' characteristics, including professional development, teaching experience, and educational background, were significantly related to mathematics achievement and contributed only 8% to students' mathematics achievement. The set of classroom characteristics contributed 35% to mathematics achievement and the set of schools' characteristics contributed 12% to mathematics achievement. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the factors that could potentially influence student performance in mathematics which greatly affects the national average due to the large number of students taking the mathematics examination and the low grade point average of that examination.References
Boyer, E. L. (1993). Ready to learn: A mandate for the nation. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Brookover, W. B., & Lezotte, L. W. (1976, September). Elementary school social climate and school achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, New York. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED131602).
Brown, C. A., & Baird, J. (1993). Inside the teacher: Knowledge, belief, and attitudes. In P. S. Wilson & S. Wagner (Eds.), Research ideas for the classroom: High school mathematics (pp. 245-259). Macmillan.
Carroll, J.B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64(8), 723-733. https://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=2839
Cherkas, B. M. (1992). A personal essay in math? Getting to know your students. College Teaching, 40(3), 83-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.1992.10532221
Collie-Patterson, J. M. (1999). The effects of four selected components of opportunity to learn on mathematics achievement of grade 12 students in New Providence, Bahamas. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Mississippi, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International, AAT 9960881
Comer, J. P. (1994). Home, school, and academic learning. In J. I. Goodlad & P. Keating (Eds.), Access to knowledge: The continuing agenda for our nation's schools (Rev. ed.), pp. 23-42. College Board Publications
Cone, J. K. (1994). Learning to teach the untracked class. In J. I. Goodlad & P. Keating (Eds.), Access to knowledge: The continuing agenda for our nation's schools (Rev.ed.), pp. 297-319. College Board Publications.
Duckett, W. R. (1980). Why do some urban schools succeed?: The Phi Delta Kappa study of exceptional urban elementary schools. Phi Delta Kappa.
Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 15-18, 20-24. https://www.midwayisd.org/cms/lib/TX01000662/Centricity/Domain/8/2.%20Edmonds%20Effective%20Schools%20Movement.pdf
Education Act, 1962, [CH. 46], (Bahamas)
Goodlad, J. I. (1983). A study of schooling: Some findings and hypotheses. Phi Delta Kappan, 64(7),465-70. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ278000
Goodlad, J. I., & Klein, M. F. (1975). The conventional and the alternative in education. McCutchan.
Inger, M. (1993). Teacher collaboration in urban secondary schools. ERIC/CUE Digest, Number 93. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED363676. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED363676.pdf
Irwin, K. (1994). Ongoing development as a teacher of mathematics. In J. Neyland (Ed.), Mathematics education: a handbook for teachers, Vol. 1 (pp. 367-374). Wellington College of Education.
Kinney, C. J. (1998). Building an excellent teacher corps: How Japan does it. American Educator, 21(4), 16-23. https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/JapanWinter9798.pdf
Kober, N. (1991). What we know about mathematics teaching and learning. EDTALK. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED343793). http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED465514.pdf
Koerner, B. I. (1999, January 18) Parental power. US News and World Report, 126, 72-76. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/990118/archive_000089.htm
Leder, G. C. (1992). Mathematics and gender: changing perspectives. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. Macmillan.
Leuder, D.C. (1998). Creating partnerships: An educator's guide. Technomic.
McGraw, D. (1999, January 18). Inspired students. U.S. News & World Report. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/990118/archive_000081.htm
Miller, R. (1990). What are schools for: holistic education in American culture. Holistic Education Press.
Ministry of Education and Training. (1996). Teaching in the public education system in the Bahamas.
Ministry of Education and Training. (1998). Bahamas General Certificate of Secondary Education: Report on the June 1998 examination: mathematics.
Ministry of Education and Training. (2001). Curriculum guidelines: Revised scope and sequence. [Unpublished manuscript].
Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (2005). Bahamas General Certificate of Secondary Education: Report on the June 2005 examination: mathematics.
Monk, D. H., & King, J. A. (1994). Multilevel teacher resource effects in pupil performance in secondary mathematics and science: The case of teacher subject matter preparation. In R. G. Ehrenberg (Ed.), Choices and consequences: Contemporary policy issues in education. (pp. 29-58). ILR Press.
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. Yale University Press.
Oakes, J., & Lipton, M. (1994). Tracking and ability grouping: A structural barrier to access and achievement. In J. I. Goodlad & P. Keating (Eds.), Access to knowledge: The continuing agenda for our nation's schools. (Rev.ed.), (pp. 187-206). College Board Publications.
Ornstein, A. C. (1991). Teacher effectiveness research: Theoretical considerations. In H. C. Waxman & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Effective teaching: Current research, (pp. 63-80). McCutchan.
Pinder, M. N. (2005, August 19). “Education official says BGCSE standard will not be lowered”. The Bahama Journal. http://www.jonesbahamas.com
Reilly, D. H. (1995). How to have successful schools!: What parents and teachers need to know to improve children's learning. University Press of America.
Rogus, J. F. (1983). How principals can strengthen school performance. NASSP Bulletin, 67(459), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263658306745901
Ruggiero, V. R. (1998). Changing attitudes: A strategy for motivating students to learn. Allyn and Bacon.
Sedlak, M. W., Wheeler, C. W., Pullin, D. S., & Cusick, P. A. (1986). Selling students short: Classroom bargains and academic reform in the American high school. Teachers College Press. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED276149
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
Slavin, R. H., & Braddock, J. H. (1994). Ability grouping: On the wrong track. In J. I. Goodlad & P. Keating (Eds.), Access to knowledge: The continuing agenda for our nation's schools. (Rev.ed.,) (pp. 289-296 ). College Board Publications. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ469082
U.S. Department of Education, & National Science Foundation. (1998). An action strategy for improving achievement in mathematics and science. http://www.ed.gov/pubs/12TIMSS/index.html
Waller, W. (1932). The sociology of teaching. Russell & Russell.
