As parents across the state open the envelopes containing their children’s scores on the new Smarter Balanced assessments administered last spring, only a third of them will see that their children met or exceeded the math standard on the new Common Core-aligned tests.

In fact, only one-third of California students in grades 3-8 and grade 11 met the math standard – compared to 44 percent of students who met the standard in English language arts. That is also significantly lower than the percentage who scored at a proficient level in math on the old California Standards tests.

Although math is a stumbling block for many, mastering it is essential for students if they wish to advance in both college and the workplace. Students are required to pass Algebra I to graduate from high school, and pass Algebra II in order to enroll at most four-year universities, including UC and CSU.

Once in college, students are generally required to complete an advanced math course beyond Algebra II to earn a four-year degree. In addition, a deeper understanding of math is required for many other courses both in high school and college, such as physics, chemistry, engineering and computer programming.

But rather than react with alarm, educators are urging both students and parents to not become discouraged by the initial Smarter Balanced math results, a key part of what the state calls the California Assessment of Student Progress and Performance, or CAASPP. “If students have been doing well in math and now get poor results, you don’t want parents to think kids are bad in math or kids to get discouraged,” said Phil Daro, who was one of the principal writers to draw up the Common Core math standards. “That is the single biggest danger in the shift (to Common Core), especially in math where it is easy to ruin a kid’s disposition to math.”

“We knew that with new standards and new tests, results would be challenging for schools,” said Jose Dorado, coordinator for elementary mathematics for Los Angeles Unified. “We’re raising the bar significantly. When you change the way you test kids, you might not immediately get the results you want.”

Educators overseeing math instruction point to a range of challenges they face in order to improve math results. These include concerns that computer-based testing doesn’t provide the best platform for students to apply their knowledge in math, inconsistent implementation of the Common Core math standards from one district to another, and lack of training and support for math teachers who are implementing the new standards for the first time.

Vicki Vierra, president of the California Mathematics Council, a professional network of more than 6,000 math teachers from districts across the state, said she doesn’t necessarily see the test results as troubling, but rather a result of raising expectations for children. “It’s important to remember that the math has not changed,” she said. “What has changed is that we now have this new process for students to think and explain how they’re learning. These new tests are part of this transition. It’s going to take some time.”

Officials overseeing math instruction in some of the state’s largest districts said they are themselves trying to interpret the test results.“There is some disappointment because you look at how hard the kids worked and how hard we all worked, and the results aren’t good enough,” said Phil Tucher, mathematics manager at Oakland Unified, where 23 percent of students met or exceeded the math standard. “But we have nothing to compare them to. We looked at each of our schools when these results came out, and our initial thoughts were, ‘What do these scores mean?’”

He and others in his district are still trying to understand how some campuses that earned among the district’s highest math scores on the old California Standards Tests earned among the lowest scores in the district on the Smarter Balanced tests. For example, only 13 percent of students at Parker Elementary met or exceeded the math standard on the Smarter Balanced tests, while 77 percent of students at Parker tested proficient or advanced in math on the California Standards Tests in 2013.

“It’s important to remember that the math has not changed. What has changed is that we now have this new process for students to think and explain how they’re learning,” said Vicki Vierra, president of the California Mathematics Council.

State Superintendent Tom Torlakson said that the new scores should serve as a “starting point.” He and others say they expect students’ scores to improve over time, as they did under the old California Standards Tests administered for the last time in the spring of 2013. In 2002, the first year the CSTs were administered, 30 percent of 8th graders scored at a proficient or advanced level – approximately the proportion who were deemed to have “met or exceeded” the standards on the current test. Ten years later, 52 percent of 8th-grade students were scoring at proficient level.

In Los Angeles Unified, where 25 percent of all students met or exceeded the standards, officials are trying to understand what the results mean for actual classroom instruction. “With the Smarter Balanced tests, there are a lot of moving parts,” Dorado, the district’s elementary math coordinator, said. “It’s very complex.”

For example, students’ math scores are broken down into three categories: “problem solving and modeling/data analysis,” “concepts and procedures” and “communicating reasoning.” The district’s initial analysis shows students had significant success on the “communicating reasoning” section of the test, which measures how well students provided evidence or constructed viable arguments to explain how they solved math problems. About 61 percent of Los Angeles students met or nearly met achievement targets in “communicating reasoning,” including 57 percent of the district’s low-income students. That is 6 percentage points higher than the statewide average for low-income students.

Dorado credits a learning module called Math Practice 3, which all district elementary schools have used for three full years, for helping teach students how to better explain their thinking in solving math problems. He said that Math Practice 3 has been successful in teaching students to not just to come up with the right answers, but also to justify them.

It’s also important for parents to remember, Dorado said, that Smarter Balanced math scores alone don’t indicate how well students are learning math aligned with the Common Core. He noted that three-quarters of Los Angeles Unified students are not failing their math classes. “As we move forward, we need to think about what other measures we are using (to gauge success in math),” he said. “Grades, teacher reports and classroom work tell us more about this student than a single score in this one test.”

**Classroom math not aligned to tests**

Like Los Angeles, districts across California are still working toward fully aligning classroom instruction with the Common Core, which Dorado said means a large portion of students were tested on a curriculum they haven’t been completely immersed in. “Los Angeles started implementing Common Core three years ago,” Dorado said. “It takes time and a tremendous amount of work. In LAUSD, we’re talking 500 elementary schools alone.”

Another challenge has been the shortage and quality of curriculum materials aligned with the standards. “Many teachers are in the implementation phase,” said the California Mathematics Council’s Vierra. “Many districts are still getting around to buying the curriculum (materials they need).”

“A lot of teachers are cobbling together old materials with lessons they find online and material the district is providing,” she said. “Much of the math curriculum is still very fragmented.”

Oakland’s Tucher said it’s going to take several years before the curriculum students are learning in the classroom is fully aligned with what the Smarter Balanced tests are measuring. He took issue with the idea that California has been implementing the Common Core for three years, following the curriculum’s official adoption in 2010. “This whole notion that in California we have been doing the Common Core for three years … are you kidding?” he said. “Three years ago we were preparing students for completely different exams.”

Tucher said that even if teachers now have materials that are fully aligned with the Common Core, and even if they’ve received adequate training, they’re still working with students who’ve had significant gaps in Common Core instruction in previous years.

“It’s a process,” he said. “These initial SBAC scores reflect an early milestone to accelerate us on our way.”

Daro believes there’s still a great disconnect between what the Smarter Balanced tests measure and what students are currently learning in the classroom – and that math instruction varies significantly from district to district. “We have a ways to go in terms of instructional materials, teachers’ knowledge of math – these things change slowly,” said Daro. “I have not seen sweeping changes in the classroom.”

Jim Ryan, San Francisco Unified’s executive director for science, technology, engineering and math, or STEM, said math instruction in San Francisco classrooms is unrecognizable compared to how students learned just three years ago. Then students sat at their desks in rows solving problems on their own. The faster they completed a problem, the more they were regarded has having mastered the topic. Ryan described this approach as “naked math” because it represented a very stripped-down learning model that involved minimal interaction and collaboration among students.

Now, students work in pairs or groups, arguing about what the right approach is to a problem, Ryan said. They have to explain their reasoning and justify it to one another. “It’s a much noisier classroom,” he said.

**Technology divide **

Some educators and experts also question whether having students take the Smarter Balanced test online is the best way for them to test students. “Mathematicians do their best work on the back of envelopes, or on some scratch paper,” said LA Unified’s Dorado. “When you ask youngsters to graph up some data or run some calculations, we have to be careful and allow the testing environment to incentivize students to do the right things.”

Currently, some portions of the Smarter Balanced tests allow for students to use scratch paper. But only the work done online is counted toward a student’s final score. Some educators said they anticipate the tests will eventually include technology that allows freehand drawing on computer screens to provide students with more ways to work out problems.

Another issue with computer-based testing is that the degree of computer literacy, or even everyday access to technology, can vary widely among students. In many urban districts with high rates of low-income students, including Los Angeles and Oakland, many students only have access to computers at school. Many schools still don’t have enough computers, reliable WiFi networks or other technology in place to provide students regular digital access during daily math lessons.

Just learning to drag and drop graph points on the screen or scrolling through drop-down boxes could prove challenging for test-takers with limited computer experience, Dorado said. “We need more of our youngsters to be on the computer (during the year), so when the test comes along, it’s not so strange and foreign,” he said.

Los Angeles is continuing to upgrade technology in the classroom, but high costs are hampering those efforts, he said.

*EdSource Today editor-at-large John Fensterwald contributed to this report.*

## Comments

## Comments Policy

The goal of the comments section on EdSource is to facilitate thoughtful conversation about content published on our website. Click here for EdSource's Comments Policy.

Don1 year ago1 year agoIn regard to Jim Ryan's quote re: "It's a much noisier classroom", my younger child learns math in an 8th grade classroom in San Francisco, and he complains daily about the level of noise that he and his classmates must endure. Ryan implies that the noise level is just part of the new math instruction, downgrading the importance of a viable working environment for students. And there's a difference between having some noise at various … Read More

In regard to Jim Ryan’s quote re: “It’s a much noisier classroom”, my younger child learns math in an 8th grade classroom in San Francisco, and he complains daily about the level of noise that he and his classmates must endure. Ryan implies that the noise level is just part of the new math instruction, downgrading the importance of a viable working environment for students. And there’s a difference between having some noise at various times and having chaos reign continually.

dormand1 year ago1 year agoThose in foreign countries commonly indicate that US students have an education that is a mile wide and one millimeter deep. Our processes are simply not conveying to students the ability to comprehend the conceptual framework of math. These various testing protocols are part of the problem; what really matters is what portion of our students are deemed prepared to take college level courses when they present those high school diplomas to the college that they have … Read More

Those in foreign countries commonly indicate that US students have an education that

is a mile wide and one millimeter deep.

Our processes are simply not conveying to students the ability to comprehend the conceptual framework of math.

These various testing protocols are part of the problem; what really matters is what portion of our students are deemed prepared to take college level courses when they present those high school diplomas to the college that they have chosen to take them to the next level.

If the students are relegated to a development ( aka remedial ) course, that means that our schooling infrastructure has failed those of the next generation.

For an indepth view of the repercussions of a failure to develop competence in math,

critical thinking, and the ability to communicate, see “The College Payoff Illusion”

by the Director of Research of The Hudson Institute, Edwin Rubinstein.

http://web1.calbaptist.edu/dskubik/college.htm

Tom1 year ago1 year agoThanks for your comments Angel. Our School District in the SF East Bay also did well on the new testing (73% met or exceeding math, 81% ELA), and they did it through pro-active measures early on. I give a lot of credit to the teachers as well who embraced the challenge and worked hard to implement CC despite having limited tools, such as revised and updated textbooks! Seems pretty obvious but perhaps … Read More

Thanks for your comments Angel. Our School District in the SF East Bay also did well on the new testing (73% met or exceeding math, 81% ELA), and they did it through pro-active measures early on. I give a lot of credit to the teachers as well who embraced the challenge and worked hard to implement CC despite having limited tools, such as revised and updated textbooks! Seems pretty obvious but perhaps Districts who did not do well will look to successful Districts and adopt best practices.

Replies

Lisa1 year ago1 year agoHI can you please tell us what school district you are? I’d like to see what I can learn from you.

John3 months ago3 months agoAs much as you'd like to think it was your teachers, it probably wasn't. It's the community from which you draw your students. They are probably high school/college graduate parents who encourage or expect their children to do well and therefore they make your school look good. I'd like to see your teachers go into an impoverished urban school with lots of English learners and see how they do. If they … Read More

As much as you’d like to think it was your teachers, it probably wasn’t. It’s the community from which you draw your students. They are probably high school/college graduate parents who encourage or expect their children to do well and therefore they make your school look good. I’d like to see your teachers go into an impoverished urban school with lots of English learners and see how they do. If they excel, I would bow down to them. However, I doubt results would be the same. It’s not the teachers, it’s primarily the students and the parents who have the biggest impact. Teachers can sometimes improve a student’s performance, and they can sometimes inspire to greatness but most are mediocre and the majority are not vested in the long-term wellbeing of their students because an overwhelming majority don’t live in the same neighborhoods and don’t identity with what their students face.

Sorry to burst your bubble but the reason your school/district did well is probably not because of you or the other teachers. It’s more complicated than that. Thanks. I’m a teacher.

Angel ZR1 year ago1 year agoWe were pretty shocked at how well our kid did in her 8th grade assessments. We'd prepared her to take the scores with a grain of salt, only to have her score at the top of the scales for ELA and Math and her Science CST was perfect. Too much time is spent on what is wrong, rather than giving credit to the schools who were teaching to the new standards two years ago (without proper … Read More

We were pretty shocked at how well our kid did in her 8th grade assessments. We’d prepared her to take the scores with a grain of salt, only to have her score at the top of the scales for ELA and Math and her Science CST was perfect.

Too much time is spent on what is wrong, rather than giving credit to the schools who were teaching to the new standards two years ago (without proper textbooks), invested in the proper technology AND had students working with the technology before the test came. When it was clear iPads were NOT the device of choice for these tests, my daughter’s school sought out Chromebooks and additional computer labs.

Doug McRae1 year ago1 year agoThis post illustrates how difficult it is to make sense of test results when new tests are prematurely installed, before validity reliability fairness have been documented. The problem is the results are contaminated with factors that obscure the true interpretation desired, that is, what kids know vis a vis targeted grade level mathematics, or simply stated how well kids achieve in math. The first contamination comes from initiating Common Core tests before Common Core instruction has … Read More

This post illustrates how difficult it is to make sense of test results when new tests are prematurely installed, before validity reliability fairness have been documented. The problem is the results are contaminated with factors that obscure the true interpretation desired, that is, what kids know vis a vis targeted grade level mathematics, or simply stated how well kids achieve in math.

The first contamination comes from initiating Common Core tests before Common Core instruction has been reasonably implemented across California. We do not have good data on just how many districts / schools have implemented CC math instruction, but last year’s Ctr Educ Policy report estimated only 2/3 of districts across the country would have implemented CC instruction as of spring 2015, and CA likely lags due to the lack of financial resources the first two years after CC was adopted by CA policymakers summer 2010. I’d also note that schools with high concentrations of low wealth, EL, and Spec Educ students likely lag other schools in the implementation of CC math instruction.

The second contamination comes from premature one-size-fits-all implementation of computer-administered testing formats, which may affect math scores more than E/LA scores (just speculation on my part), with kids not fully ready for the new testing format unable to show their true math achievement levels. Again, this complication likely affects schools serving low wealth, EL, and Spec Educ subgroups more than other schools, leading to artificial increases in achievement gaps for these schools.

However, another contamination may also be that Smarter Balanced tests may focus not on WHAT students know, but rather HOW students learn CC math. Tests should be focused on WHAT students know, regardless of HOW they learn. If tests are biased toward selected learning pedogogies, that interferes with true unbiased measurement of math achievement. If this is the case, then the statewide assessment program is inappropriately being used as leverage for a particular type of learning pedogogy, rather than a true measurement of math achievement. This type of contamination is a core element for validity of results from any new test, and it has not been addressed to date by either SBAC or CA as far as I know.

There are no shortages of reasons why CA’s 2015 SBAC math scores defy reasonable interpretations. Unfortunately, most of the contaminations discussed above will require significant time for resolution, and it will be 2018 to 2020 before Smarter Balanced math results provide meaningful valid reliable fair information for CA educators, CA parents, CA taxpayers, and most importantly for CA students most affected by use of these test results.

Replies

SD Parent1 year ago1 year agoWell said. Another “contamination” was software/hardware issues in SBAC math testing, such as compatibility problems that caused “drag and drop” not to function properly when testing was done with some devices plus the general learning curve due to the fact that the online SBAC test calculator function buttons were not in the same locations as they were on handheld calculators.

Don1 year ago1 year agoDoug, can you give examples of the testing of the how rather than of the what in regard to Smarter Balanced assessments? Legally, standards are not supposed to dictate pedagogy, though the Common Core State Standards do exactly that and few in the field of education seem concerned about it. Teachers in classrooms across the state are now teaching math through cooperative learning, an instructional methodology. I can say that it has not faired well … Read More

Doug, can you give examples of the testing of the how rather than of the what in regard to Smarter Balanced assessments? Legally, standards are not supposed to dictate pedagogy, though the Common Core State Standards do exactly that and few in the field of education seem concerned about it. Teachers in classrooms across the state are now teaching math through cooperative learning, an instructional methodology. I can say that it has not faired well for my own son and I hear numerous complaints from parents about the overuse of group work in math. This is a practice that particularly disadvantages EL and special education students.