Background/Context: School tracking practices have been documented repeatedly as having negative effects on students’ identity development and attainment, particularly for those students placed in lower tracks. Despite this documentation, tracking persists as a normative practice in American high schools, perhaps in part because we have few models of how departments and teachers can successfully organize instruction in heterogeneous, high school mathematics classes. This paper offers one such model through a qualitative and quantitative analysis. Focus of Study: In an effort to better the field's understanding of equitable and successful teaching, we conducted a longitudinal study of three high schools. At one school, Railside, students demonstrated greater gains in achievement than students at the other two schools and higher overall achievement on a number of measures. Furthermore, achievement gaps among various ethnic groups at Railside that were present on incoming assessments disappeared in nearly all cases by the end of the second year. This paper provides an analysis of Railside's success and identifies factors that contributed to this success. Participants: Participants included approximately 700 students as they progressed through three California high schools. Railside was an urban high school with an ethnically, linguistically, and economically diverse student body. Greendale was situated in a coastal community with a more homogeneous, primarily White student body. Hilltop was a rural high school with primarily White and Latino/a students. Research Design: This longitudinal, multiple case study employed mixed methods. Three schools were chosen to offer a range of curricular programs and varied student populations. Student achievement and attitudinal data were evaluated using statistical techniques, whereas teacher and student practices were documented using qualitative analytic techniques such as coding. Findings/Results: One of the findings of the study was the success of Railside school, where the mathematics department taught heterogeneous classes using a reform-oriented approach. Compared with the other two schools in the study, Railside students learned more, enjoyed mathematics more and progressed to higher mathematics levels. This paper presents large-scale evidence of these important achievements and provides detailed analyses of the ways that the Railside teachers brought them about, with a focus on the teaching and learning interactions within the classrooms.

In this paper I consider what appears to be an emerging feminist perspective within mathematics education that suggests that theories such as 'attribution theory' lay too much 'blame' upon girls and women for their underachievement in mathematics and not enough blame upon the wider school system. I attempt to extend this theoretical position further through the use of case study data from two schools. Interviews with underachieving girls are used to show the way in which girls link their underachievement, not to themselves, but to the type of mathematics that is widely taught in the UK, which they believe denies them access to understanding. An alternative model of mathematics teaching is described that is open and project-based and that may be able to eradicate underachievement and disaffection amongst girls.

The question of whether students should be grouped and taught in classes according to their perceived ‘ability’ during their school careers is one of the most controversial issues in education. This is partly because the issues that surround setting, streaming and mixed ability teaching are relative, both to ideology and personal values. Decisions about student grouping are also of immense importance to the education of students and this importance extends beyond the development of subject understanding. In the UK moves from streaming to setting to mixed ability teaching and back again to setting can be related directly to developments in research, educational theory and the political agenda of the time. In this article I will present a brief overview of the theoretical and historical developments which surround student grouping. I will then aim to extend theoretical positions further by examining the way in which setting and mixed‐ability teaching influenced the motivations, perceptions and eventual attainment of students in two schools.

The idea that success in mathematics is only available to those born as “mathematics people” has been challenged in recent years by neuroscience, showing that mathematics pathways develop in the brain through learning and practice. This paper reports on a blended professional learning model of online and in-person meetings during which 40 teachers in 8 school districts in the US learned about the new brain science, challenging the “math person” myth, as well as effective mathematics teaching methods. We refer to the combination as a Mathematical Mindset Approach. Using mixed methods, we conducted a one-year study to investigate teacher and student learning in a Mathematical Mindset network. We collected data on teacher and student beliefs, teacher instructional practice, and student learning gains on state achievement tests. The results from our quantitative analyses found statistically significant positive improvements in student beliefs, teacher’s instructional practice, and on students’ math test scores. The mindset approach particularly raised the achievement of girls, English learners, and economically disadvantaged students. Based on our qualitative analysis, we propose that the success of the intervention rests upon two central factors: (1) The different forms of PD served to eradicate the learning myths that had held up teachers and learners; and that (2) Teachers had space for identity work as mathematical learners.