Cited by 15School Choice and PerformanceCritical Race Theory in EducationTeacher Education and Leadership Studies

Folk Belief Theory, the Rigor Gap, and the Achievement Gap

Torff, Bruce·2014·The Educational Forum

Abstract

Folk belief theory is suggested as a primary cause for the persistence of the achievement gap. In this research-supported theory, culturally specified folk beliefs about learning and teaching prompt educators to direct more rigorous curriculum to high-advantage students but not to low-advantage students, resulting in impoverished pedagogy in disadvantaged schools. Folk beliefs tend to be resistant to change, which helps to explain why the achievement gap has proven so persistent. At the same time, various belief-change strategies have potential to promote use of rigorous curriculum with disadvantaged students.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00131725.2013.878424

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Torff, B.
Affiliations
Hofstra University (US)
Corresponding author
Torff, Bruce
Venue
The Educational Forum
Published
2014-03-19
Volume
78
Issue
2
Pages
174-189
ISSN
  • 0013-1725 (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-8098
OpenAlex
W2061270087
Cited by
15
References
1
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 1
FWCI
1.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
The Educational Forum (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › School Choice and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Critical Race Theory in Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
Keywords
achievement gap, curriculum rigor, disadvantaged students

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review