State Board poised to lower standards for middle school math

Doug McRae, a retired testing publisher, from Monterey.

Doug McRae

At its meeting next week, the California State Board of Education will consider eliminating the incentive for schools to offer a full Algebra 1 course to students ready to take Algebra by 8th grade. But removing this incentive would result in a de facto lowering of expectations for mathematics programs in middle schools, and lead to a significant reduction in the number of middle school students becoming proficient in Algebra. Do we really want to do this?

Perhaps it is best to view this issue from the perspective of a middle school mom who asked in an email several weeks ago: “With state board action adopting Common Core grade 8 math standards in January, will middle schools be able to offer Algebra?” She continued, “My son’s school will be offering the new 8th grade Common Core class next year but not Algebra. I’d like my son (who is a high performing math student) to take Algebra 1 in 8th grade. The middle school principal, high school principal, and high school math teacher have all said this is a better pathway for college prep.”

My email reply was: “Middle schools will have the option to offer Algebra. The State Board’s action in January made the Common Core standards for grade 8 the state standards for California, but those standards are not mandatory, and schools may deviate if they wish. Whether the Common Core for grade 8 is a better pathway for college prep is a contentious and disputed issue. I and others view Algebra in middle school as a more ambitious and rigorous pathway for college math and science, more competitive with many European and Asian nations’ curricula.

“We see that California has proven over the past 15 years with our ‘Algebra by grade 8′ initiative that half or better of our middle school kids are capable of taking and becoming proficient in Algebra by grade 8. For this group of students, we view the State Board’s action in January as a step backwards. A better policy would be a true two-pathway policy: Algebra for those ready by grade 8 and Common Core grade 8 math for those not-yet-ready for Algebra.”

At the State Board meeting in January, there were PowerPoints and much discussion on the value of a true two-pathway policy for middle school math.  However, if one looked at the standards documents approved by the board, there was no language to support the offering of a full Algebra course in the middle school grades, only a hint via a graphic that Algebra in middle school would be acceptable. Based on that graphic, it was clear that the Instructional Quality Commission, which advises the State Board on implementing Common Core, had plans for statewide support for instructional elements such as curriculum frameworks, instructional materials, and teacher professional development, for Algebra in middle schools. But the elephant in the room was whether (1) the assessment system, and then (2) the accountability system would support a true two-pathway policy.

Good intentions via instructional supports will be trumped in a heartbeat by one-pathway assessment and accountability systems. In the real world, what gets tested is what gets taught. And if accountability systems such as the API give equal credit for less rigorous and more rigorous pathways, then schools will gravitate to the less rigorous pathways to maximize their APIs. For policymakers to ignore these realities would be to operate with blinders.

Under the current accountability system, 8th grade students who don’t take Algebra in grade 8 are docked points, for purposes of API scores, on non-Algebra standardized tests. Next week, the State Board will consider the CDE staff recommendation to eliminate that distinction and remove a school district’s incentive to encourage students to take Algebra in 8th grade.

That step—treating Algebra and non-Algebra math the same for API purposes—foreshadows the State Superintendent’s position once Common Core is implemented, as early as two years from now. If in a few years the state, on its own, does decide to create a new Common Core-based end-of-year Algebra test, the precedent will have been clearly established to treat it and Common Core 8th grade math the same for accountability purposes. Meanwhile, the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium plan upon which the Superintendent and his staff rely heavily, does not include designing or developing an end-of-the-year Algebra test. Rather, the recommended new statewide assessment system would involve only a Common Core grade 8 math test. All students would take that easier, pre-Algebra test, without distinguishing or crediting those currently taking Algebra. With this scenario, it does not take a rocket scientist to conclude that what is emerging from the policy cloud in Sacramento is a lowering of expectations (or standards) for middle school kids ready to take Algebra by grade 8.

State officials assert that the federal Department of Education will not accept a true two-pathway system for accountability purposes. But that is not true. There are potential assessment and accountability designs that would support a true two-pathway middle school math policy for California. These designs involve developing a valid and reliable Algebra test that is linked to the Smarter Balanced Common Core grade 8 test, and setting performance standards for both tests on the common scale of measurement that links the two tests. At least one other state has used this design and gained federal approval for their program for NCLB purposes. A benefit of using this assessment system design is that it would provide logical weights for how much credit to give each test for accountability system calculations.

Unfortunately, the recommendation before the Board next week does not follow the common-sense strategy just outlined. Instead, it foreshadows a less rigorous approach. Kids not yet ready for Algebra by grade 8 should benefit, since the Common Core grade 8 pathway will be superior for these kids than their current instruction and assessment pathway, but at the expense of lowered instruction and assessment goals for kids ready for Algebra.

The State Board should rise above the State Superintendent and CDE staff recommendations, and support a true two-pathway policy for middle school math. The Board also needs to follow a strategic plan to align future statewide assessment and accountability programs to both pathways to fully implement a good two-pathway policy.


Doug McRae is a retired educational measurement specialist living in Monterey. In his 40 years in the K-12 testing business, he has served as an educational testing company executive in charge of design and development of K-12 tests widely used across the US, as well as an adviser on the initial design and development of California’s STAR assessment system. He has a Ph.D. in Quantitative Psychology from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Filed under: Commentary, Common Core, Hot Topics

Tags: ,


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment Policy

EdSource encourages a robust debate on education issues and welcomes comments from our readers.

  • To preserve a civil dialogue, writers should avoid personal, gratuitous attacks and invective.
  • Comments should be relevant to the subject of the article responded to.
  • EdSource retains the right not to publish inappropriate and offensive comments.
  • EdSource encourages commenters to use their real names. Commenters who do decide to use a pseudonym should use it consistently.
  • Please limit comments to 250 words to prevent comment clutter; if you intend to say more please link out to a place that contains your full comment.
  • Comments with more than one link automatically enter moderation. Comments from new commenters are automatically moderated.
  • Repeated violation of this comment policy will lead to a warning. Continued violations will lead to a ban.

30 Responses to “State Board poised to lower standards for middle school math”

EdSource does not track who "likes or dislikes" a comment. We only track the number of likes and dislikes.

  1. Hurley on May 9, 2013 at 7:44 pm05/9/2013 7:44 pm

    • 000

    Paul, I feel you’re missing the point. This is not about math majors. STEM majors all require competency in higher math, to varying degrees. Think physics (applied math, used in everything from mechanical engineering to rocketry). Even computer animation uses vector mathematical formulas to generate the “movement” of hair or fur (rent “Brave” and watch the bonus features).

    And this isn’t about a “race” to get college admission (although it will impact that, as well as how many years the student would be in college if they pursued a STEM major). It’s about allowing students to reach their potential when their aptitude is in the STEM arena, including math, and to encourage them if that is what interests them, rather than discourage them by placing them below their abilities and interests.

    I worry that the focus at the state level (and in our largely urban district) is on the students who are struggling to keep up with the current standards, rather than treating students as the individuals that they are and offering additional time and support for those who are not ready but providing wings for those who are ready to soar. Why clip their wings by not providing these students the opportunity to learn at their level?

    It is probably true that the majority of students are not ready for the conceptual concepts of Algebra in grade 8. Our school uses a math placement as well as CST scores test each year to determine the correct placement for a student. As a parent of a student who flourished in Algebra in grade 7 (without a tutor) as part of an accelerated math sequence currently available at our middle school, and who will likely pursue a STEM major because of her aptitudes in math and science, I worry about the future students like her.

    It is important to provide the opportunity for growth in ALL students, including those who excel in a subject (think GATE and AP courses). Without recognition at the state level that there are many students who would benefit from accelerated math pathways–in our case, Algebra in 7th grade–there is little reason for the district or schools to provide this for these students.

    What if we were talking about a sport? Would you encourage a child who excelled at, say, soccer, play in a rec league with average players, be the star of the group but never really reach his potential and perhaps lose interest, or would you encourage that child to join a more competitive league or team, to work with peers with the same aptitude in the sport, and to grow into a much better player? Why would we treat children as essentially all the same when it comes to math?

    P.S. I’m glad to hear that it seems there will at least be support of Algebra in 8th grade through a Common Core test for these students (although one might wonder why they couldn’t just take the same test as all other students taking Algebra, whatever their grade). By the same token, I’m glad that child was old enough to have been able to have the option of an even more accelerated pathway and feel sorry for those future children with an aptitude for math who will not.


    • navigio on May 10, 2013 at 8:18 am05/10/2013 8:18 am

      • 000

      “Without recognition at the state level that there are many students who would benefit from accelerated math pathways–in our case, Algebra in 7th grade–there is little reason for the district or schools to provide this for these students.”

      I think the ‘recognition’ that is really missing is funding. I do think locally, the desire to do the right thing by all students should be sufficient as a ‘reason’, but when BoEs are essentially forced to prioritize at the expense of quality and differentiation, then these reasons are trumped. We seem to think testing recognition can make up for that. It cant.

  2. Marcy on Mar 10, 2013 at 9:18 pm03/10/2013 9:18 pm

    • 000

    I am the parent that wrote to Doug on this subject a couple weeks ago. Although I am not well versed in the politics of public education, I am more aware than the average parent (in my district anyway) about what’s going on because I am a teacher in this district and have regular conversations with many administrators. When I mentioned to some of the other parents that there was a chance that Algebra I might not be taught at our middle school, they were confused and amazed. We assume that the “people in charge” are going to make the right decision for our children, but I can see that that is not always the case. Money and test scores apparently are what matter. As I said, I’m a teacher. I am not naive to the importance of these 2 aspects of education, but shame on anyone who puts money or test scores about the needs of students.

  3. navigio on Mar 7, 2013 at 3:17 pm03/7/2013 3:17 pm

    • 000

    A couple broader points about STEM and the comments:

    I think El makes an important point about the importance of consistency rather than quantity. Math is like language in the use-it-or-lose-it sense.

    It is also interesting for me that STEM comes up whenever these math qualifications are talked about. While it’s obviously relevant, it seems to me that the amount of advanced math actually needed for STEM majors can vary wildly depending on the major.

    The other point that seems to often go missing (though I think everyone knows this at some level) is that the push for STEM is based on some assumptions about the future. There does not even seem to be consensus about those assumptions but we are using them to argue for and set policy.

    Its also worth noting that a large percentage of STEM major students actually leave their majors, for reasons other than ability.

    Lastly, STEM is being implemented in many places that we might not expect it to be (eg middle school environments where Algebra proficiency is virtually non-existent). In order to achieve this, these environments must make a point of ‘mushing’ students of varying ability. If they dont do this they risk ostracizing a portion of the community. If they do do this they risk what they are hoping to achieve. It is a very difficult situation and if there is anything I agree with Chris on, its that we need to be ‘both-and’. But we need to make sure we make these programs meaningful, not just another acronym to make it look like we’re doing something different or better when we’re really not.

  4. el on Mar 7, 2013 at 8:16 am03/7/2013 8:16 am

    • 000

    I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that although the basics of science and math are obviously important for anyone pursuing a STEM career, that art and writing are probably equally important for a successful career in those fields, especially in a world where NSF/NIH are only funding 1/10th of the quality proposals they receive.


    • Manuel on Mar 7, 2013 at 1:05 pm03/7/2013 1:05 pm

      • 000

      Hey, el, don’t put that in writing! Else nobody is going to pursue a STEM doctorate because they now know that even if they win the race, they’ll still be rats!

      (Actually, while writing a good proposal is essential, more important is that the funding agency has not changed what it funds. I’ve seen entire fields get de-funded because of a change on “contract monitors” who decided that other areas must be paid attention to. It is brutal out there and, given our research universities dependence on rainmakers, very very stressful. Oh, well, we’ll have to change the business model!)

  5. Paul on Mar 7, 2013 at 8:05 am03/7/2013 8:05 am

    • 000

    Chris, your assertions are incorrect in the public university arena.

    I investigated the CSU undergraduate admission requirements and, by way of example, CSU East Bay’s undergraduate math major.

    The admission requirement for all undergraduates, “three years (algebra, geometry, and intermediate algebra)”, is achievable if a student passes Algebra I as late as Grade 10! Most CSU admission is by formula, with the candidate’s SAT or ACT standardized test scores and high school GPA the principal factors. The formula does not recognize any specific high school course (beyond minimum requirements), except that extra points are granted for good grades in any “honors” course.

    Math is not an “impacted” (high-demand) major. Even if it were, undergraduates are admitted in a “pre-major” status, which allows them to fulfill lower division major requirements before formally entering an “impacted” major.

    Calculus I (“MATH 1304″ at CSU East Bay) is a lower-division component of the undergraduate math major. At best, a student who completed calculus in high school would receive advanced placement credit for that course. Advanced placement is an option that saves time but is by no means necessary for completion of the major.

    More specifically, the CSU East Bay undergraduate catalog explicitly contemplates the following high school preparation options for math majors [I have inserted course titles for clarity]:

    “A student who has recently taken a pre-calculus course in high school should be prepared to begin the calculus sequence. A student with three years of high school mathematics, including two years of algebra [Algebra I and Algebra II] and one year of geometry, should be prepared to take MATH 1130 [‘College Algebra’], or possibly MATH 1300 [‘Trigonometry and Analytic Geometry’].”

    At a private university with a holistic admissions process, accelerated high school math would carry some weight, and there might well be special admission requirements for a math major. But this brings up another point: an undergraduate math program (or a particular science program that happened to be math-heavy) is not for everyone! Even though CSU’s undergraduate math major is easily accessible, in general it is not reasonable to expect that students with a record of low- or even average performance in middle- and high-school math would be able to accede to a math major. Only a minority of students achieve proficiency in middle school algebra, and only a very small minority of students are expected to pursue undergraduate math programs. The “best and brightest” math students have, and will continue to have, plenty of viable middle school and high school course pathways to choose from.

  6. el on Mar 7, 2013 at 8:03 am03/7/2013 8:03 am

    • 000

    I want to say that I don’t think math acceleration per se creates STEM graduates nor creates proficiency in math. A strong background, and a record of success is important. This means challenging the kids who are ready for more as well as reinforcing base concepts with the kids who are not. There will always be 8th graders ready for algebra and 8th graders who are not, and both need appropriate 8th grade math.

    I am less concerned with exactly when algebra is taken and more concerned with kids not taking math in their senior year, for an overall STEM-friendly policy.

  7. Chris Stampolis on Mar 7, 2013 at 1:13 am03/7/2013 1:13 am

    • 000

    Hurley writes “Given California’s reliance on STEM graduates for the success of our state and the recognition that we need greater, not fewer, STEM graduates, I would like to see whatever means necessary to encourage districts to offer accelerated math pathways for those students who are ready and able. Stifling these students in classes where the pace is set for those who cannot grasp these concepts quickly not only stagnates their progress but potentially stifles their interest in a subject where they could excel.”

    Those of us serving on School Boards need significant input from those of you posting comments on this thread. We are on the cusp of a significant policy battle between board members and school district staff who relate to math high-achievers and board members and school district staff who relate to math middle and slow achievers.

    Does our public school system need to provide a reasonable path through which almost no student leaves Grade 12 without Algebra 1 proficiency? Yes, absolutely.

    Does our public school system also need to provide a publicly-funded path for our state’s best and brightest students in math, a path that competes with what’s offered at California’s top private schools? Yes, absolutely.

    Mushing high potential math students with middle and slow achieving math students at levels of Algebra 1 and above doss not serve those potential math leaders well. We must stop presuming that “math smart” kids likely will achieve better in a non-public-school environment.

    Mike Kirst needs to speak loudly about the reality of college admissions (within a major) and high levels of math preparation. Though Paul writes above that “Completing algebra in Grade 9 leaves plenty of time for students to meet and exceed university admission requirements for math,” those taking algebra 1 in Grade 9 likely will not be admitted to the math and science MAJORS at the universities where they are offered a spot in the “Class of ‘year X.'”

    And at any University of California campus, few incoming freshmen can find spots in science or math based majors – even if they finished first-level Calculus by 12th grade. Admissions are based in large part on 11th grade report cards. A student heading to a UC campus without calculus is unlikely to fit with those schools’ standard cohorts of “Calculus already done” kids.

    This is a clear case of where California’s public schools must offer “both-and.” We must bring up the hundreds of thousands of students who get lost low algebra proficiency. And we must bring up the many thousands of students who are ready to go ahead. If school district leaders have little numerical or financial incentives to encourage fast track math options, the “slow your expectations” advocates will push for blanket Algebra in 9th grade – as a norm. Yes, we must provide better preparation for students who are not ready for Algebra, but we must provide better acceleration for students who are ready to learn and achieve. There is a difference between competence and excel.

    Chris Stampolis
    Governing Board Member
    Santa Clara Unified School District Board of Trustees
    408-771-6858 *


    • Doug McRae on Mar 7, 2013 at 8:17 am03/7/2013 8:17 am

      • 000

      Chris: Your last paragraph is a great summary for the position expressed in my admittedly “techy” commentary. We’ve got to do both things with our middle school math programs. And the state board needs to support both things with not only instructional supports, but also with their assessment and accountability decisions.

    • Manuel on Mar 7, 2013 at 1:00 pm03/7/2013 1:00 pm

      • 000

      Chris, I would love to be able to address the LAUSD Board on this but they are too busy in hand-to-hand combat over the use of test scores in teacher/principal evaluations as well as approving charter school proposals. Oh, did I mention their ongoing budget battles? There is no way they are going to pay attention to what actually gets taught…

      On a more serious note, what I see is a relentless push to get kids to take Algebra I when they are simply no developmentally ready to understand it. Yeah, they get might As and score above proficient in the grade 6 and 7 math CSTs. But once they are faced with the abstract reasoning required in Algebra, well, too many of them punt. I’ve heard this from well-off parents who end up hiring tutors and I have heard it from poor parents who think it is all their fault. So, yes, I completely agree that the schools must give placement tests in order to match students with classes and their resources, but that would be contrary to the way we run most of our schools, no?

    • navigio on Mar 7, 2013 at 1:56 pm03/7/2013 1:56 pm

      • 000

      ‘We must stop presuming that “math smart” kids likely will achieve better in a non-public-school environment.’

      It would be nice, but I dont see it. Worse, I think that presumption makes it increasingly difficult for many of our schools to have any meaningful change of policy within any reasonable amount of time. I dont see how they could be equipped to do so.

      ‘If school district leaders have little numerical or financial incentives to encourage fast track math options, the “slow your expectations” advocates will push for blanket Algebra in 9th grade – as a norm. ‘

      I agree with that, though I would add that a strong community push could also help avoid this pitfall.

  8. Paul on Mar 6, 2013 at 11:33 pm03/6/2013 11:33 pm

    • 000

    Frances, the questions that you pose are answered in “College Bound in Middle School & High School? How Math Course Sequences Matter”, a 2012 study by the Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning.

    Molly and Hurley, as a professional who has taught math from Grades 3 to 12, in some of the state’s lowest- and highest-performing schools, I have had just the opposite experience. The former principal at the middle school where I now work bowed to parent pressure and relaxed the standards for math acceleration. This year, for the first time ever, we are offering remedial services and awarding C, D and F grades to Grade 7 Algebra and Grade 8 Geometry students!

    As for the regular math track, we long ago discontinued Grade 8 general math and instituted 100% social promotion, so C, D and F grades were already common in Grade 8 Algebra. The study that I reference above uses real transcript data to show that students who attempt algebra before they are ready never recover from the experience.

    Yes, a Grade 8 Algebra option should remain available in middle schools. No, most students aren’t qualified for that option. We’ve got to dispel the irrational fear that ‘no one will want to marry you if you don’t finish Algebra I in middle school’. Completing algebra in Grade 9 leaves plenty of time for students to meet and exceed university admission requirements for math.


    • Doug McRae on Mar 7, 2013 at 8:12 am03/7/2013 8:12 am

      • 000

      Paul: There is no question there were flaws in the “algebra by grade 8″ initiative of the last 15 years. Your commnent shows some implementation flaws I think due to local level decisions. At the state level, the biggest flaw was not to establish curriculum frameworks and instructional materials and professional development for kids not-yet-ready for algebra by grade 8 until the mid-00’s, and then not to follow that up with a “pre-algebra” or “algebra readiness” test to match the instructional supports that were defined by the statewide curriculum commission (and approved by the state board) in the mid-00’s. One final reaction to your comment — it may well be accurate that “most students aren’t qualified” for a middle school algebra option in your district, but statewide the data says that at least half of the 8th grade enrollment is qualified to take algebra by grade 8.

  9. Paul Muench on Mar 6, 2013 at 11:15 pm03/6/2013 11:15 pm

    • 000

    Not at all clear that school districts are listening to Mr. Kirst’s advice and having patience. Seems our district is already anticipating the change and plans to drop the accelerated math program for next year. I’ve heard that we will find out next week. I’m guessing that the district is waiting on the outcome of this vote. I suggest another way to have patience is not to make any changes at this time. Seems much more patient to finish the policy work before taking any action.

  10. Doug McRae on Mar 6, 2013 at 7:37 pm03/6/2013 7:37 pm

    • 000

    El, Molly, Frances, Hurley: I fully agree with the sentiments in your comments. CA has shown we have a substantial percentage of our 8th graders capable of becoming proficient in a full algebra course by 8th grade. The state needs to support an algebra pathway in all schools for those kids. The IQC is promising to support the algebra pathway for middle school grades via the instructional elements they are preparing for eventual state board approval, including curriculum frameworks, instructional materials, and teacher professional development. The issue raised by my commentary is whether the state will fully support both pathways for middle school grades in their prospective statewide assessment program and finally in their prospective accountability system. From the details now available from SBAC and from the recommendation in the agenda materials for next week’s meeting, it does not appear the state is headed in the direction of supporting algebra in the middle school grades in either the prospective assessment or accountability areas. Thatsa the problem . . . .

  11. Hurley on Mar 6, 2013 at 1:23 pm03/6/2013 1:23 pm

    • 000

    Given California’s reliance on STEM graduates for the success of our state and the recognition that we need greater, not fewer, STEM graduates, I would like to see whatever means necessary to encourage districts to offer accelerated math pathways for those students who are ready and able. Stifling these students in classes where the pace is set for those who cannot grasp these concepts quickly not only stagnates their progress but potentially stifles their interest in a subject where they could excel.
    And excel they do. Compared to their peers, the nearly 200 students in the accelerated math pathway at our local middle school–which (based on annual intake and/or proficiency testing)puts them in Adv pre-algebra in 6th, algebra in 7th, and geometry in 8th–generally test at 100% proficiency in these courses compared to a district-wide average of below 50% proficiency for the same grades in other math courses.
    As a STEM major myself, I applaud the ideas behind the Common Core Math Standards, as I do believe that greater depth helps students gain greater understanding in math, particularly as it becomes more conceptual in algebra and beyond. However, I would like to see, at the state level, a clear recognition of pathways–with relevant testing protocols–that would encourage districts and school to provide accelerated math programs for those students who are ready and able to excel in them and who will likely become the STEM innovators and workforce in our state.

  12. Frances O'Neill Zimmerman on Mar 6, 2013 at 1:23 pm03/6/2013 1:23 pm

    • 000

    Hear, hear, el! Let’s look at that last paragraph again and take it to heart. Student outcomes are what count. Whose agenda is being served here? It doesn’t sound like it has much to do with optimal general education of kids.

    How well-prepared are California’s K-7th grade students to launch into 8th grade algebra? How many such students are there? How many California 8th graders successfully complete 8th grade algebra now? What does this mean for the math education of the general population of public school students? Once we know these facts, what then do we do with the information?


    • Soquel Creek on Mar 18, 2013 at 10:31 am03/18/2013 10:31 am

      • 000

      I’ve compiled links to California’s public school performance on the U.S. Department of Education’s National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) tests in math, science, and reading.

      California Public Schools and Performance on National Assessments

      At the 8th-grade level, California public school students scored below average–toward the lower end of the spectrum–but above Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama, and Washington, D.C. public schools.

      NCES Snapshot of California 8th-grade Math

      NAEP State Results in Math

      • navigio on Mar 18, 2013 at 12:04 pm03/18/2013 12:04 pm

        • 000

        About 7% of 7th grade CA students scored proficient on the Algebra 1 CST last year. About an additional 30% in 8th grade.
        Also, be careful with state comparisons on national tests, especially as it relates to longitudinal results. CA has had the largest demographic shift of any of the large states in the past 2 decades. It is very important to understand the impact this has had on overall ‘results’. For example, african americans had the largest increase in 4th grade NAEP Math and English results (among the largest states) over the past 2 decades, even while overall reading improvements were middling, and overall current math results are the worst among the large states.

        That said, even NAEP warns against using its data to compare states.. 😉

        • Soquel Creek on Mar 18, 2013 at 1:03 pm03/18/2013 1:03 pm

          • 000

          You’re right that it’s difficult to exactly compare one state against another. However, California seems to consistently lag the others on NAEP. We spend less per student than the national average. We have much higher student-to-teacher ratios.

          The following report provides a more apples-to-apples comparison. It also shows that California, overall, lags in math and science achievement. No doubt, there are many centers of excellence within the large system.

          “Mega-States: An Analysis of Student Performance in the Five Most Heavily Populated States in the Nation”

          You are also correct about our shifting student demographics.

          “California Public School Demographics”

          • navigio on Mar 18, 2013 at 1:11 pm03/18/2013 1:11 pm

            • 000

            Page 4 of that first link also contains a good graphic on how those 5 largest states compare in demographic shift.

  13. Molly on Mar 6, 2013 at 11:35 am03/6/2013 11:35 am

    • 000

    As a parent, I’m really worried that by the time my kids are in middle school, Algebra won’t be available for them. I do think that there may be good reasons not to require Algebra for all 8th graders, or penalize those districts that don’t have all their 8th graders in Algebra. Otherwise, we’ll continue to have kids failing Algebra in 8th grade and then again in 9th grade, when maybe if they get more prep in 8th grade they’ll fare better when they meet Algebra the next year (maybe). But at the same time, I do think middle school Algebra MUST be an option– and not just in the fancy suburban school districts, which I’m quite sure will retain 8th grade Algebra as an option, but also for more diverse urban or rural districts, such as the one my kids are in. I think it’s vital that districts not just be allowed to offer algebra in middle school, but required to offer it to those students who are ready for it. Or else it’s a huge step backward, and furthers the disparities in college readiness, STEM achievement, etc. I am quite sure that my kids will be more than ready for Algebra in 8th grade (if not before). Will it be an option for them? It should be.

  14. el on Mar 6, 2013 at 11:04 am03/6/2013 11:04 am

    • 000

    I’m less concerned with there being “incentives” to offer algebra in grade 8 than to ensure schools are “able” to offer algebra in grade 8, especially for kids who have been on that pathway up to now.

    By “able” I mean able to make it work with the funding they have, with the assessments they are expected to ace, with the staff and schedule limitations they face, and all the rest of the pesky implementation on-the-ground details that may get in the way of a standalone 6-8 grade school or 7-8 grade school being able to offer algebra for the students who are ready.

    I don’t want kids pushed into math they’re not ready for; in high school, we already understand that there are different mathematical paths for kids. It will be good to accept that this truly starts in middle school and that kids need what they’re ready for regardless of the opinions of those in Sacramento or Washington DC.

  15. Michael Kirst on Mar 6, 2013 at 9:22 am03/6/2013 9:22 am

    • 000

    Your information on SBAC is just wrong. I talked with CEO Willhoft of SBAC in person on Feb 22 ,and he said you are wrong. The grade 8 adaptive assessment will allow students to take grade 9 SBAC algebra.
    The accountability issues for math are not finished either, so there is nothing final in the meeting this month about grade 8 algebra.


    • Doug McRae on Mar 6, 2013 at 9:58 am03/6/2013 9:58 am

      • 000

      Mike: The commentary does not talk about taking algebra in grade 9, it talks about supporting taking algebra in the middle school grades (grade 8 or before). Willhoft is correct the SBAC adaptive assessment planned for grade 8 will allow students to take algebra in grade 9, no problem with that. Also agree that the accountability issues for math are not finished, but the precedent set if the board approves equal API credit for less rigorous and more rigorous pathways will be problematic when accountability issues for implementing the common core for middle school math are fully addressed. Doug

      • Doug McRae on Mar 6, 2013 at 7:23 pm03/6/2013 7:23 pm

        • 000

        Clarification, Mike: If what you meant by the grade 8 assessment will allow students to take a grade 9 SBAC algebra course, as I thought you meant, then yup I agree with that. If you meant that the grade 8 adaptive assessment will allow students to take grade 9 SBAC algebra test questions via its adaptive branching feature, then no that’s not what the grade 8 SBAC assessment will permit. The SBAC blueprint released last November indicates the item bank for the grade 8 SBAC adaptive assessment will only have test questions measuring the grade 8 SBAC content standards, and will not contain test questions allowing the branching feature to measure the full range of the grade 9 (or high school) SBAC algebra course. And the grade 9 SBAC algebra test questions SBAC is developing, per the email I got from SBAC staff in January, will not be included in any pilot or field testing and will not be the basis for an adaptive test developed by SBAC nor linked to the grade 8 SBAC test. So, that information is the basis for my assertion that SBAC will not have a test capable of covering the range needed for a true two-pathway program that includes both SBAC’s grade 8 common core and SBAC’s grade 9 algebra content standards. I’ve heard others say that SBAC’s adaptive tests will handle both options for a true 2-pathway grade 8 math program, but the details for SBAC’s test development plan do not confirm that speculation. Thus, if CA wants an assessment program that covers both parts of a true two-pathway program, CA will have to develop the full algebra part of that plan on their own, and the test scores on the underlying common scale covering both sets of test questions would provide the differential credit for accountability calculations rather than equal credit for scores based on only one of the two sets of standards and tests. Doug

  16. Michael Kirst on Mar 6, 2013 at 8:09 am03/6/2013 8:09 am

    • 000

    This article is misleading and premature. SBE is not done yet with its policy making for algebra. SBAC adaptive assessment will be able to shift students to an algebra 1 level through the adaptive design in grade 8. The proposed action by the SBE in march is to eliminate the accountability link to the outmoded general math curriculum currently used for grades 7 and 8. McCrae does not mention that common core has elements of algebra in it in grades before grade 8, and is more demanding than current general math general.
    Many students who want to take calculus in grade 12, need grade 8 algebra. SBE is working with other states to develop this pathway. People need to have some patience, and not leap to conclusions from op ed pieces.


    • Doug McRae on Mar 6, 2013 at 9:08 am03/6/2013 9:08 am

      • 000

      Mike: I appreciate the SBE may not be done yet with your policy making for algebra in the middle school grades. That is why I chose words like “foreshadows” for my commentary. I’m hopeful the SBE will arrive at a position that supports both common core grade 8 and algebra for both assessment and accountability programs as well as the instructional elements of implementating the common core for the middle schools math.
      But, current information is that the SBAC program will not support algebra questions in its adaptive design for grade 8 — SBAC is developing algebra questions but they are not pilot testing those questions and not planning to produce a grade 8 common core adaptive test with the range to measure a full set of content standards for a full algebra course. This information is based on an email exchange with SBAC staff in January, which I’d be happy to share with interested parties. So, if CA wants to have an adaptive assessment capable of measuring the full range of algebra at grade 8, then either SBAC will have to change their design or CA will have to undertake that effort on its own. I appreciate that the specific action on the SBE agenda for next week deals with the outmoded tests for grade 8 and 9 based on outmoded content standards for grades 6 and 7, but the point of the commentary is that giving equal credit to less rigorous instruction and assessmant (i.e., the outmoded stuff) and more rigorous instruction and assessment (i.e., the current STAR algebra end-of-course test) invariably leads to districts putting kids in the less rigorous curriculum and assessment to raise their APIs — the same phenomena that we’ve seen with modified assessments with our special education kids in recent years.
      That the common core has elements of algebra before grade 8 and within the common core for grade 8 is true, but essentially irrelevant for this analysis — the comparison schools and districts will make in the future will be between common core grade 8 and full algebra for grade 8, and for that comparison common core grade 8 will be the less ambitious less rigorous pathway. (see chart for the sharp increase of Hispanics taking and successfully completing Algebra I over the past decade – a success that will be jeopardized by the new policy.)Thus, equal API credit for these two choices will lead to schools shying away from offering algebra in middle school grades. Thus, my point is that equal credit for the less rigorous and the more rigorous, as being recommended for SBE action next week with our “outmoded” curriculum and assessment, foreshadows where we are headed for the future implementation of the common core, and is a bad precedent for that reason. Doug

  17. navigio on Mar 5, 2013 at 11:42 pm03/5/2013 11:42 pm

    • 000

    Any time I read about the ‘8th grade algebra issue’, I cant help but think about what it is we are doing (or not doing) in earlier grades to cause this problem. There is probably nowhere where ‘achievement gaps’ are more starkly represented than in the middle school algebra issue. Independent of the valid questions Doug brings up, I really wish we could see this more as a question of multi-year curriculum and implementation strategy.

Template last modified: