Donna Hargens, Wake's chief academic officer, says the school system is addressing the issue of minority underrepresentation in Algebra I.
In an op-ed piece today, Hargens says the Wake County school system has been trying to increase minority participation in Algebra I in middle schools for the past three years. She lays out a chronology of steps that have been taken since then, including using the SAS EVAAS program.
"None of these steps have closed the gap in Algebra I enrollment yet, but they represent our commitment to do so," Hargens writes. "Our community and our global economy are only becoming more competitive, and the rigor of our students' academic experiences must increase to keep the pace."
The op-piece comes amid the questions about minority Algebra I participation that were raised last year in a SAS report. It was picked up again last week after a presentation on the SAS report led Tony Gurley, chairman of the Wake County board of commissioners, to accuse the school system of deliberately limiting Algebra I access to boost test scores.
Comments
but Bob
Mon, 01/25/2010 - 00:10 — user12345You are in a dream world ...
(1) charter schools are non-profit
Yes bu they still need to pay the bills and each student that is self activating requires less overight than one who is not.
(2) ED kids aren't a protected group
Correct by SE are ... SE teachers rarely get laid off
(3) AG kids actually cost WCPSS morethan non-AG kids
they should but they don't ... the schools don't offer the full AG offering and try to restrict entry ... AG kids get a watered down version ...
(4) I disagree that goverment education only covers getting up to a minimum standard.
I agree bu that is what you get ... public school just meets the minimum ... Bob, as I told you from our homeschooling, public schooling is child abuse ... my kids learned twice as much as their public peers in half the time and loved doing it ...
Again, there was any money to be made in ED and SE, the private sector would be beating the doors down ... these kids ar high cost snad low return ... your AG kids can be given a watered down version and will be satisfied.
Well...
Mon, 01/25/2010 - 09:06 — Bob_Sconce(3) Don't get me started on the AG offering. But, I do know that my kids' school has a full-time AG teacher. Unless she's a volunteer, that's still a cost.
The problem with your model is that there's generally no money to be made in educating ANY set of kids -- very, very few private schools are for-profit. If you want to create an incentive to focus on ED kids, then perhaps there should be a monetary incentive for it.
SE kids are another thing entirely -- there is an incentive to focus on them, but it's really focused on individuals who go into teaching SE kids. Also, because SE kids** often need one-on-one attention, any school that focused on them would be prohibitively expensive for most, if not all, families. The very wealthy with SE kids are able to find good people to work with their kids, for a profit.
**SE encompasses a very wide range of ability levels and difficulties, and I don't think thinking of them as a group is likely to help. You may have a small school that helps, say severely autistic kids well, but that isn't appropriate for those with Downs Syndrome.
comment
Mon, 01/25/2010 - 00:11 — user12345comment
I just re-read the op-ed
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 13:37 — klanders65I just re-read the op-ed piece. I need to set something straight here. She says, "Nearly three years ago, we gathered middle-school math department chairs together, seeking input from teachers as we began to refine our current placement criteria."
"refine our current placement criteria" is not actually a lie. To create placement criteria from not having any could be called "refining."
Until the school counselors started pushing this issue there were no criteria at all--objective or subjective.
In case you missed it
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 15:30 — TrailerParkGirlSee my response under the Indy Tedesco post. Thanks.
X
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 23:50 — lferreriX
think straight
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 13:18 — klanders65People easily get some things mixed because the truth makes less sense than being confused. One thing to always keep in mind is that what Dr. Hargens refers to in the article is that they have been trying for 3+ years to figure out a way to increase minority enrollment in advanced math. Keep straight: They are not trying to get more minority students to have math skills necessary for success in the top track; They have been trying to decide if they will use objective criteria that measures mastery of math skills and let the kids who have demonstrated mastery enter the top track. Having this objective criteria would result in a huge increase in low income and minority students in the top track.
They have been trying for 3+ years to decide if they should have a policy that students who meet an objective measure should be allowed to enroll in the top math track at the point where you can enter the top track. (6th grade, possibly 7th). Currently, with no objective criteria, low income and minority students with the same academic history are far less likely to be placed into the top math track. This is true regardless of what objective measure you use, EVAAS predictions for success, some arbitrary EOG scale score, etc.
This is very different from "how can we get more minority students to succeed in math and be able to enter the top track." What has been discussed for 3+ years is whether or not to let students who achieve at some certain level enter the top math track. As you can see from the criteria she described, the answer is still no. There is no objective criteria such that if you meet it, the system will direct you and welcome you into the top math track. The school counselors have been advocating for this objective criteria so that they can help these students enroll (after the system has directed them to the bottom track) and have been met with 3+ years of resistance.
This is the main thing people confuse. We are not talking about getting more students prepared to succeed in the top track. We are talking about having some objective measure (anything at all) such that if you meet it, you will be directed in to the top track. There is no such thing now. They've been discussing this for 3+ years. Those opposed say that low income and minority students are academically at risk and therefore should not take advanced courses regardless of how well they are succeeding prior to tracking. Given this mindset, there is no way low income and minority students can gain access because regardless of how well they perform they are considered "at risk."
What she should have said is that for more than three years, school counselors have been trying to get the school system to have objective academic criteria for tracking students high in math at the point of entry, and working with the curriculum dept, E&R, and after 3 years they were able to get subjective criteria with one objective measure in it.
The system directs some kids to the top, and turns others to the bottom. This is not based on any objective measures. Students turned to the bottom have to fight the system to switch to the top. The counselors are fighting for them. The system is such that they have to fight. The system considers them at risk of failure no matter what the objective measures of academic success are and steers them away from challenging courses. And in 3+ years the system has resisted using objective measures.
One other major idea to keep straight is that for the most part, students don't choose their path through math. Many parents don't even know 6th grade is tracked. They couldn't advocate for their kid because they don't even know tracking begins then. And those who do know may be assuming there was some objective reason for their child being tracked low. Like, maybe they haven't mastered the content. But commonly, the child has mastered the content fine. Their 5th grade teacher just thinks they are at risk and will stop being able to learn later or something. You would have to know what most people don't to make informed choices. At high school, it is up to the school whether or not to let students see math classes for which they are not recommended when they log in to select their courses. In order to choose to take a course they weren't recommended for, they'd have to be aware that there are more they can't see, then figure out how. Also, PSAT scores include "predictions for success" for advanced courses. The high schools get these. They can use them or not. There is no policy. They can say that only students recommended by a teacher for Honors PreCalc can enroll in it, or they could say that students predicted to succeed by the PSAT predictions will be told they are predicted to succeed and encouraged to enroll. Many high schools choose not to tell the kids.
So, keep these things in mind and keep them straight when you hear people say they have been trying to figure out how to get more minority students in to advanced track math or that some kinds of students just choose the easy path...
conspiracy?
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 14:35 — klanders65To clarify on what I said below in response to woodstock about conspiracy, there is no conspiracy that created this situation. But there probably is a conspiracy now to cover up the fact that they have known for 3+ years that totally subjective placement criteria (ignoring objective measures that show kids with higher scores than those let through the gate are being left out in racially and economically biased ways) are still being used for course placement. There is no sign that this is about to change.
This is just speculation, but probably the reason why they are unwilling to move forward with such an obviously needed correction is because it will totally reshuffle the system of privilege that now exists in our schools and in our society. Many people, including most non-ED, non-minority families will experience subsequent equity as a profound loss and angrily respond.
The differences in
Sat, 01/23/2010 - 18:15 — klanders65The differences in educational opportunities are not necessary or equitable. We don't need two entirely different math tracks. We may need opportunities to go through a single track at different rates, but we do not need two entirely different tracks. Tracking is done in inequitable ways.
Students who have access to the best courses (best being most rigorous, challenging, good teaching) benefit more than students who do not have access to these courses. Access has nothing to do with who has shown that they have some special ability to learn better. Access does have to do with whether you get into a magnet program and get tracked high (like the good schools within schools at Enloe and Ligon), whether you get labeled gifted early on, and whether you get tracked high in 6th grade math and make the cut after pre-algebra.
For some reason, the system has evolved to provide stellar educational opportunities to those students who can gain access to these courses. Math tracking is the backbone of this system. By tracking in math those students who are not going to have access to these opportunities are not prepared to take advantage of them anyway, so it looks like it is their fault, not the system's fault.
There will be no equity in education until there are objective criteria for access to these stellar opportunities. And once there is objective criteria for access, the system will fall apart. Once the good school within Enloe is full of kids from random backgrounds, people are going to start to wonder why we are not teaching all kids the way we teach the Enloe kids. Right now it looks like wealthy powerful people just have better kids. The school system actively promotes that belief. The effectiveness index masked the inequities by adjusting expectations based on income.
Objective access would make it easier for people to see that the stellar education PRODUCES better educated kids.
Giving access to the top math track based on objective criteria will crumble the entire system. It will all fall down. The whole house of cards will come crashing down. No way will wealthy powerful people allow their children who don't make some objective measure for gaining access to the kind of educational experiences that produce well educated kids get tracked into dead-end math courses. Those good math courses are good for everyone. They are not harder. They are better. Way better.
And I think people within the system who do not want the house of cards to fall are doing anything they can to maintain the barriers blocking access to the top math track. They haven't studied this problem for 3 years. They've actively blocked any progress toward objective criteria for 3 years. If they had made progress, the SAS report would show equitable access to the top math track. And it doesn't. Not even close. Why do you think they hid the SAS report? As red_balloon says, this letter to the editor is damage control.
They were actively fighting people within the school system who wanted objective criteria for gaining access to the top math track. It is not like it would be hard to have objective criteria and use it. Why would that take longer than 3 years? I could do that in one hour. They have been fighting it for more than 3 years.
We shouldn't even have a top math track. It evolved historically then became a very convenient way to reproduce privilege. Math tracking is the backbone of our whole social production machine. And people are fighting like crazy to keep the machine intact. Math tracking has to exist and has to be subjective for the machine to work. They haven't been studying the problem for 3 years. They have been fighting those who are advocating for some objective criteria for gaining access to the top track for three years.
Now they are scared it has been exposed by EVAAS so they are taking credit for the part of the progress they could not quite keep from happening.
Do you think they'll get away with this? It looks like they are going to.
They probably will
Sat, 01/23/2010 - 19:43 — lferreriThey probably will get away with it unless a number of vocal parents and teachers (and maybe community members) openly challenge them. I grew up in an affluent university town. (We were not affluent nor did my dad work at the university.) Looking back, I can see that the system gave some privileges to the wealthier kids and the kids whose parents were influential. Yet I don't think we had the wide disparity that the WCPSS has. Everyone in my school got five years of French instruction, for example. (4th grade to 8th grade) The attitude was that every kid could learn French. In fact, Mrs. Wilcox used to start the first day of French class in fourth grade by saying that we already knew a lot of French. She would then go through all the French words (like garage and chauffeur) that we already knew. She convinced us that we could learn and we did. That was fifty years ago but a few years back we went to Montreal and I was amazed at how much I'd retained after all those years. (I did take more French in high school and a year in college, but she laid the foundation.) The WCPSS seems intent on convincing kids they can't learn things, rather than the other way around.
When I think about it, it's hard for me to understand why they actively resist putting qualified kids in advanced classes. I can kind of understand the motiviation of the parents to push to get advantages for their kids but I would hope that it would be the school's role to push back. I taught accounting and I was always thrilled if a student wanted to learn more and take more advanced work. I always felt that my field was really important and interesting and that everyone should learn as much as they could about it. And the history professors, English professors, religion professors, etc. felt that way about their fields. That almost seems the opposite of the attitude that the WCPSS is promoting.
new Math A, B and C courses for high school next year
Sat, 01/23/2010 - 15:31 — mbgjwaltersAt the school board meeting there was a presentation about new math classes being rolled out next year (2010-2011 school year) to address the standards passed by the SBE (state board of education) in Sept 2009. It sounded like Algebra I, Algebra II and Geometry would be replaced by Math A, B and C (starting next year Math A replaces Algebra I). From reading the Essential Standards on the DPI site, it sounds like the content from the three classes is substantially rearranged in the new Math A,B,C with some key statisitics and probability and discrete math sections added to Math A. At the meeting there was some discussion also about how a university would interpret Math A, B and C on a student's transcript.
At an earlier board meeting about the budget, I thought it was said that there would be no funds provided for textbooks from the state for next year.
Is the state requiring WCPSS to roll out a new high school math curriculum with no new text books and no funding for training high school math teachers? Can anyone who was at the board meeting or knows about these classes comment?
Thanks!
Argh...
Sat, 01/23/2010 - 21:31 — Bob_SconceIs there any way to abandon the NC standard course of study? At least in the math department, it's an utter abomination. No wonder North Carolina schools are the joke of the free world.
These new standards water down the Geometry curriculum even further. There's now a SINGLE objective (MBC.G.6.1) that basically covers the entire realm of doing geometric proofs.
And, claiming it covers discrete math is a joke -- absolutely THE most basic, fundamental, concept in discrete math is proof by induction, whch isn't TOUCHED by the SCOS.
Whoever came up with this rape of mathematics education ought to be shot, buried, dug back up, shot again and then burned.
I have heard this same
Sat, 01/23/2010 - 17:05 — klanders65I have heard this same thing, but not any details. I cannot imagine how it would happen.
I recall them saying that
Sat, 01/23/2010 - 17:35 — DrActualFactualI recall them saying that they would be providing binders with all the supplemental materials to support this change. I got the impression that they will just be using handouts from their own materials and no textbooks because they wouldn't be organized in the fashion that they will be teaching to.
Math A B and C
Sat, 01/23/2010 - 18:02 — mbgjwaltersThe existing Algebra and Geometry textbooks wouldn't contain the new material covering the statistics, probability and discrete math topics. And I don't see how math teachers could be trained in the new content by a training session in August. It appears that the state hasn't selected or recommended new textbooks and that LEA's are supposed to wing it on their own.
And from looking at some of the notes concerning the new curriculum (found by googling essential standards and sbe meetings), it looks like this is similar in philosophy to Trailblazers. If the state is mandating a major change to the high school math curriculum, one would hope there would be a lot more information available on the DPI website. I haven't found anything about a pilot program with the new curriculum or really any kind of detailed information about the mandate. The process seems rushed.
Let me add some clarity to
Fri, 01/22/2010 - 21:40 — klanders65Let me add some clarity to help people understand this situation. People confuse low income and minority with low scoring. Even when they don't mean to and don't realize they are doing that. It is no wonder people do this because the school system equates low-income and "academically at risk." Put this confusion together with this fact: Many middle schools only allow their highest scoring (high B and A) pre-algebra students to advance to 8th grade algebra. (Don't confuse this with the brightest kids. The tracking has already begun and many of the best and brightest didn't get the opportunity to take pre-algebra because they were tracked low in 6th grade.)
Although a C pre-algebra student could advance to 8th grade algebra and learn far more than they will learn from 8th grade math, the teachers want only the highest scoring students in 8th grade algebra so that their EOC scores will all be high.Although many students would benefit from advancing from Pre-Algebra to Algebra, the goal is for the teachers to look good not for the students to benefit. This is an actual real problem and practice.Low income and minority students who score high and have a high likelihood of success in top track math are tracked low because they have no advocates demanding that they have access to the top track. Low income and minority students who have better math skills and higher scores than students in the top track are tracked low because of the value and scarcity of the top track math seats.People get confused and say low income and minority students are tracked low to keep them from bringing down the scores of the top track. They would actually raise the scores of the top track. If we let the top scoring minority students in to the top track, we would raise the scores. It is really sad for me to see that they are kept out because the seats are too valuable for kids with no powerful advocates, then people who think they are arguing on behalf of these kids think they are being kept out because they'll bring down the scores. Do you understand the sadness of this?Long before the curriculum audit, WCPSS school counselors were looking at data and finding that many student groups did not have access to the top track. They were doing this in a coordinated way, with presentations to principals, trying to get objective criteria so that kids who met the criteria could have a seat. They fought and fought to get this criteria. They wanted to advocate for the kids, and promote success. From what I hear, many had very hard times. I think the school counselors led this committee to get objective criteria for math placement and got resistance. This was several years ago.Some schools tried to use the new criteria, which includes subjective judgement. Many insist on having ways to keep kids out. I know some schools got resistance from the math teachers.The new criteria never closed the gap because it was hardly used. A few schools used the criteria and it did make progress toward closing their gaps. Not only is WCPSS math placement criteria complicated and confusing, but half the people making placement decisions don't even know it exists.This article talks about 7th to 8th grade placement. There is no point talking about 7th to 8th grade placement criteria because you can't go to algebra in 8th if you didn't take pre-algebra in 7th and you can't take pre-algebra in 7th if you weren't tracked high in 6th by the 5th grade teacher. Many many kids meeting placement criteria are overlooked because the 5th grade teacher doesn't know the criteria or doesn't know how to look up the data needed to make the decision.Middle schools don't have any easy way to check to see if kids have been properly placed. A couple principals and many school counselors did the work needed to try to get kids properly placed into advanced 6th grade math. I don't think they got much help in doing so. Why doesn't someone check in to how this went?EVAAS will certainly make it easy to identify students who would succeed, but I think WCPSS is still trying to decide if they want to use EVAAS as placement criteria or add it to the complicated criteria they have but don't follow now.And whatever happens, we all need to keep in mind that being ready for Algebra means the school system got the kids ready and they didn't get the other kids ready.I also want to clarify two things that I won't argue, but trust me or ask any math teacher... 8th grade algebra and 9th grade algebra are two different animals. For some unknown reason, 8th grade algebra is rigorous and leads to taking Honors math classes in high school. 9th grade algebra is not rigorous and does not lead to taking AP or Honors courses in math, even for kids who ace it. It is in the official math plans they give out. So, be aware that kids who wait till 9th grade are already out. The opportunity is gone. It doesn't have to be but it is because this is how we do it. The other thing to clarify is that it is better for a student to take the higher level math and get a C than to take the lower level math and get an A. It doesn't hurt them. I hurts them for sure to take the lower math. There isn't a "later" thing.... the math tracks are entirely different. Keep this in mind. It hurts their future success for sure if they are tracked low.
I think you are overstating
Sat, 01/23/2010 - 19:28 — woodstockI think you are overstating the situation. Saying kids who don't take algebra until 9th forever denies them an opportunity to become engineers is overstating the situation a bit. They may have to improvise an alternative path, but it can still be be accomplished. It is an awful message to tell a student that something that occured in middle school will restrict future career opportunities.
But why
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 11:14 — lferreriBut why should a student have to overcome the system? Even if it is possible to become an engineer by improvising an alternative path, why should the WCPSS be creating obstacles that make this necessary? I think of it this way: If a student has the ability to take 8th grade Algebra (or any other challenging course) and succeed, it is the system's responsibility to make that course available if at all possible. In fact, I think the schools should be encouraging qualified students to take challenging courses, not restricting their availability. This practice isn't going to be changed until parents and the community become aware that this is happening and that it has many negative consequences, some long term. So I don't think it's alarmist to try to inform people. Frankly, I think SAS did a great public service to try to present objective data to examine the situation. I just wish their report had received more widespread discussion.
I agree with you. I was
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 11:40 — woodstockI agree with you. I was commenting on the dire prediction that if you do not take Algebra I in 8th grade you are doomed to a life of limited possibilities. That is not true.
So...
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 09:16 — Bob_SconceSure, it's possible to take Algebra in 9th grade and then go on to be an Engineer. But, it's much more of an uphill fight, and one that the district is apparently not going to help you in.
9th grade Algebra I means 10th grade Geometry means 11th grade Algebra II and then 12th grade triginometry/pre-calc, which means no calculus in high school. And, that's a big impediment to getting into an engineering program.
When you consider that the district is now restricting students from doubling up on math courses in high schools, getting to Calculus in 12th grade is a significant challenge.
I remember being one of the
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 11:38 — user12345I remember being one of the few college freshman who had not taken Calculus in HS ... fortunately, many of the ones who were ahead of me partied too much and lost their lead .... but it was much harder for me and now I am guessing a HS student might not even get accepted ....
I wonder if this situation does not come back to money ... surely it is cheaper to offer the lowest common offering and avoid offering higher maths so you can avoid finding scarce math teachers .... what is the incentive for WCPSS to exceed minimum standards? ... do we reward risk taking in public education? No ....thus we get what we pay for ...
So...
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 15:51 — Bob_SconceThere's definitely a shortage of high-school math and science teachers, just because people with those degrees have a lot more alternatives and teachers just aren't paid all that much. And then the requirement for a teacher certification puts roadblocks in front of people who would consider teaching math after finishing their first career.
Unfortunately, public education isn't set up for risk-taking. You take risks when you have to get ahead of the competition and there's effectively no real competition to the public schools. I would be much happier with a situation where money followed the student, forcing public schools to compete and rewarding administrators if they compete successfully.
A question ... If the
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 16:47 — user12345A question ...
If the average cost per student is say $8000, I am guessing it cost $5000 for a NED, $8000 for an ED and $10,000 for a SE .... so, wouldn't that be the amount to follow each student? I am thinking that some NED parents think they would get the system average of $8000 and compare it against a place like Thale for $5000 ... the system wide average is pushed up by all the kids that need more services ... admins, TA, remedial, after school, specialists, etc.
So...
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 17:32 — Bob_SconceIn principle, I agree with the idea of having a bigger chunk of cash going for students that are harder to educate.** But, in practice, I think it'd be hard to calculate the amount and pretty easy to game the calculations. Do you increase the amount for gifted students? They also get special services, especially if they're in a magnet school. Your $5K and $8K numbers are clearly low since the WCPSS average is over $8K. Special needs kids are certainly more expensive, but there just aren't enough very high-needs kids to move the average that far.
**I worry about creating bad incentives with this policy.
I understand ... I was just
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 19:30 — user12345I understand ... I was just exploring the misconception folks have that they pay $8500/student ... first, few folks actually pay $8500 x number of kids in taxes ... the difference is made up by a lot of folks with no kids and second that they could take the $8500 each and go to say Thale and pocket the other $3500 ... unfortunately, if all the NED left the system with their $8,500 the amount left would not cover the ED and SE kids , I don't think.... also, I don't think gifted kids count ... government education only covers bringing everyone up to a minimum standard and special attention to disabled kids as dictated by law ... gifted kids are not a protected group and could be ignored legally .... I am basing my logic on the fact that most of the charter schools seem to avoid ED and SE I assume because they are harder to teach, involve more regulations and afford lower profits than NED kids.
Do you really need ~$8000
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 20:11 — red_balloonDo you really need ~$8000 per year per student to get to the bare minimum?
Does not have to ... Thale
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 23:49 — user12345Does not have to ... Thale removes the higher pay for teachers (e.g. years of service, ceritications), lunch room, parking lot, media room, ball field, etc.) and gets to $5000.
Public education is incumbered by regulations ... look at all the data people throw around here ... my wife, a teacher, spends a good deal of time filling out the forms that show up in the data people here pull ... plus all the overhead for the stats people that analyze it, the web people that post it, on and on ....
So...
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 21:03 — Bob_Sconce(1) charter schools are non-profit
(2) ED kids aren't a protected group
(3) AG kids actually cost WCPSS morethan non-AG kids
(4) I disagree that goverment education only covers getting up to a minimum standard.
(5) Charter schools have different cost structures -- for one, they don't have to pay rent. If you include debt service for public schools, $8,500 may be an appropriate amount for NED kids.
Many high schools have
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 09:54 — woodstockMany high schools have block schedules. Can't a student take, for instance, Algebra II and Geometry in the same year?
Also, if necessary, a student can take calculus in college.
What I am saying is that if someone wants to be an engineer and does not take Algebra I in 8th grade, they are not doomed as was implied. And, I would hope that no teacher or counselor would ever tell that to a child.
So...
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 15:44 — Bob_SconceThere was a discussion in another thread about this. Evidently, at least some WCPSS high school students are simply not allowed to take two math courses in the same year. I don't remember the specifics (please, somebody else fill that in), but seem to recall that it does have something to do with rationing of math and the current budget cutbacks.
If somebody wants to be an engineer, their guidance counselor should counsel them to do whatever they can to get to Calculus in high school. It's possible, but much more difficult, without that. And, it's better if that's AP Calculus.
Freshmen and sophomores at
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 19:57 — DrActualFactualFreshmen and sophomores at Panther Creek HS will not be allowed to double up on math courses. They are limiting the doubling up ".....there are some courses that are paired with other courses that students will be allowed to request (ie. Algebra 1 Plus/Hon. Geometry). " This was supposedly a direct result of the Gen'l. Assembly cuts where Del Burns went into classrooms/teachers and cut. We lost several math teachers and this will be a BIG setback in math for many students (we have approx. 1200 freshmen/sophomores--not sure what math levels they are all at). This is specific to PCHS and IMHO will result in less competitive placements for college in the future compared to other local HS unless a student doubles up on math in their Jr. and Sr. years if allowed. Depending on how far behind the student was in math, this could be problematic for completing enough courses to get accepted into good universities that require certain courses. I am hoping they will have enough math teachers to offer AP Calculus in the future.
it's harder
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 11:42 — loriacThe kids are told they should only take one math class per year, and strongly discouraged from taking 2 per year. Is this part of the rationing?
So, while not impossible, the student has to overcome the counselor recommendation.
I find it rather
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 12:19 — woodstockI find it rather shocking that students would be "discouraged from taking 2 (math) classes per year," especially with a block schedule that seems perfectly designed to do just that. What is the rationale for denying students access to the classes they need?
clarification
Sat, 01/23/2010 - 20:40 — klanders65Below, I may sound a bit sarcastic, but I am serious. This is serious. What I want to clarify is that a student has the ability to get on track after middle school. If the opportunity were there, they certainly could still learn the math. And there is nothing wrong with taking Calculus in college for the first time.
But the opportunities are not there. They do anything they can to keep kids from switching math track. And you have to get in to the top track to get prepared to learn the math required to study engineering. In fact, I would go out on a limb and say or predict that you have to be in the top track to learn math well enough to have an SAT Math score to get accepted in to a decent engineering program.
Lots of these things could be tested. They could be known. Someone could look at the data and see how many kids move into an Honors math track if they weren't tracked high in 6th grade.
You could also look to see if you had two groups of kids who were academically equal prior to 6th grade, and one group got tracked high in math and the other low--how do their SAT scores compare?
The impact of being tracked low could be known.
SAS report
Sat, 01/23/2010 - 21:12 — lferreriI'd have to look it up but I think the SAS report investigated the relationship between taking Algebra in 8th grade and having a high math SAT score. They found a strong positive relationship I believe.
The situation cannot be
Sat, 01/23/2010 - 20:18 — klanders65The situation cannot be overstated. Worse than telling a student (which they don't) that he does not have an opportunity to be an engineer is making it so that he really doesn't.
You are right that it is not impossible, but is very unlikely. If a 9th grade algebra student goes to sign up for Honors Geometry, first of all it won't even show up as a choice at some high schools so he may not even know it exists-so he will have to go to his counselor and ask for a way to enroll in a course he cannot see when he selects his courses using their online system. Then the math teachers will tell the counselor not to let him enroll because he will surely fail. Everyone who won't fail Honors Geometry was identified by their 5th grade teacher and tracked high. The math teachers will tell the counselors to tell him no. He'll have to get a parent to sign a waiver. His teacher will know he is in on a waiver and resent the heck out of that. This often has a bad ending. The math teachers can prove they are right that only those identified before 6th grade should be allowed to take Honors math.
Or, the student can wait until college and then take 8th grade algebra his freshman year, not for credit. It is called College Algebra. They even teach it at Duke. They have to because we track so many kids low that huge percentages of college freshmen who have completed Alg 1, Geo, Alg 2 and one more math class do not know what students who took 8th grade algebra knew before 9th grade. They have to take college math, which is 8th grade algebra. Many but not all of the teachers of this course think the kids must be losers and treat them as if they are. By this time, the kid dreads math and doesn't want to take any more than he has to.
Occasionally a kid goes down one of those two paths I described and comes out successful. I bet maybe as many of 20 kids in the state per year. That might be a little high.
But don't worry. No one tells the kids they are doing this to them. They protect them from feeling bad by hiding it from them. The kids' feelings are being watched out for. And if a kid tries to move up in the math track, they give him hope by explaining that maybe later he will be ready to move up. He can dream. And in 30 years, I can think of as many as 3 students who actually moved up and were successful. And I am only one person. Like I said, there could be as many 20 kids per year in the state that overcome this system on their own.
You are right. This would be a terrible thing to tell the kids. Lets not tell them. I hope they don't read this blog.
Are you making all of this
Sat, 01/23/2010 - 21:51 — woodstockAre you making all of this up? You make it sound like a conspiracy involving even college professors. I agree that parents must stay engaged and make sure their kids are taking the right courses, even fighting the system when necessary, but it cannot be as sinister as you make it sound. The believablity of your insight suffers when you enter the realm of complex conpiracies.
"...there could be as many 20 kids per year in the state that overcome this system on their own."
How can you possibly know this?
College professors
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 11:33 — lferreriI taught at the college level for twenty-five years. What KLanders is describing is, unfortunately, the reality at even selective institutions. Colleges don't offer lower level math courses because they are part of a "conspiracy". They do it because so many students arrive unprepared. It isn't just math, by the way. If you don't believe this, google college remedial classes. In many states, a large percentage of students have to be placed in remedial classes because they are not able to handle college level material. This is true even at fairly selective institutions. (By the way, parents hate it and sometimes blame the college for placing their children in these classes.)
In addition to the remedial classes, there are other ways that students are hurt by poor preparation. For example, I taught for nine years at two universities in the UNC system. For our major, they required that a student complete the first semester of an intermediate class in a foreign language. A very high percentage of my students did not know enough to begin at that level, despite having taken two or more years of foreign language in high school. So they started back in the first year courses. This doesn't show up as remedial work but it is a waste. And don't get professors started talking about students who arrive in history classes not knowing basic historical facts or in English classes not knowing basic grammar.
are there stats on NC
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 11:35 — AngelaWare there stats on NC educated stduents vs. other states when it comes to who needs remedial or not?
Interesting question
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 12:15 — lferreriI don't know, but I'll try to find out.
One caution: I taught at one institution that resisted putting students in remedial classes (partly because it makes parents angry). So the state-to-state data may not always be comparable. The other alternative to remedial classes is to reduce the content level of the regular classes which disguises the problem but, of course, doesn't change it.
I understand, more of just
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 12:22 — AngelaWI understand, more of just "in general"...I'd be interested because the SCOS in NC (well WCPSS is the only school system I have experienced in NC) seems...well....inadequate is the "nicest" term I can come up with and wonder if that would prove out with stats such as these?
I found this
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 14:11 — lferreriI found this in the Virginia Pilot, a Hampton Roads newspaper.
"Although most [of] the remedial education occurs in the community college system because of its open admissions policy, UNC system campuses had 4,884 students receiving remedial instruction during the 2007-08 school year, at a cost of $2.5 million, according to a system report.
The price tag for remedial courses for students 21 and under in the community college system was $26.3 million in the 2008-09 fiscal year."
The article was published on January 17, 2010 so the information is probably pretty current. I don't know how many students are freshmen in the UNC system so I don't know how to translate this into a percent.
I've mentioned this before but the N&O had an article recently about students in a creative writing class at UNC-CH. The professor started the semester by giving a grammar test and most of the students flunked it. This is just anecdotal evidence but UNC-CH is a very selective university and these are students who presumably like to write so I found this kind of depressing. I think of this as "hidden remedial work."
It is not a conspiracy. It
Sat, 01/23/2010 - 22:17 — klanders65It is not a conspiracy. It is just how it is. It is not a conspiracy that all kids don't take piano lessons, yet it is true that in general, the kids who take piano lessons play the piano better than kids who never had a lesson.
I don't know there are 20 kids per year in the state who overcome the system. I am guessing based on in 30 years I have seen about 3 kids who did not get tracked high in 6th grade math go on to take meaningful advanced math classes later. I am guessing the 20 based on that. I have also seen kids try to advocate for themselves to take more advanced courses and be told no.
There may be a conspiracy to keep the system the way it is, once the data showed this how the system is working.
Here is what we need the answers to:
How many kids who were not tracked high in middle school math (i.e. took 8th grade algebra) took any Honors or AP math (or science for that matter) courses in high school? Someone should be able to answer that question.
Then, how many kids who took no Honors or AP math courses in high school are accepted into engineering programs in college?
I think the answer will be very small numbers.
If we could get answers, I'd also want to know how many college freshmen in NC have to take College Algebra, even though they have completed Alg1 and 2 in high school? And how does College Algebra differ from 8th grade algebra? I think the number would be very very large.
Then, how many kids who have to take College Algebra go on to take more than the required math for their major? How many major in things that do not require much math?
I don't think it was a conspiracy. The system was just there with no policies and no objective criteria for math placement. It evolved in to what we have now because no one was in charge of what was happening. So, power, greed, elitism kind of shaped the system in an ad hoc way. And we got what we have.
Then, 3-4 years ago when school counselors started looking at data to decide how to promote success for more students, they discovered that they didn't need to get students better prepared for top track math but rather had to advocate to get those already prepared in to the math classes. With no objective criteria, that is nearly impossible. No one was thinking about this system before. The school counselors came face to face with how the system is working when they found that it can be nearly impossible to advocate for advanced math placement when no one could say what is required for advanced placement. Then, they came to realize you have to be placed high in 6th grade or you are not prepared to move to the top track. There was no conspiracy to create the system. But why has it taken 3-4 years of school counselors trying to stand up to the system once it was discovered by looking at the data, and there still is no objective math tracking criteria? Why was the SAS report not shared? It supported what the school counselors have been trying to promote for 3-4 years. But they can't get access to the top math track using objective criteria, so that they can advocate for kids. It feels like a conspiracy to not change the system that just kind of developed over time because of lack of policies.
I know I make it sound bad, but I think it is bad. I don't think anyone was responsible for creating the system. But I think people may be responsible for keeping the system as is. I can't figure out their motivation.
Holy Cow klanders
Sat, 01/23/2010 - 00:48 — SDR256You packed a lot in that and it was hard to read but I read through it all and I'm very grateful that you shared all you did. I had NO idea. And so, if other educated parents like me just complacently go along with the system and let their kid do what they want to or need to do and - voila! - because they've waited till 9th grade to take Algebra (I didn't study Algebra til the 9th grade but thank goodness I was destined for the arts) , they will never be an engineer? Holy cow Batman! That's fork in the road EVERY parent needs to be aware of. It should not happen just randomly.
It is not happening
Sat, 01/23/2010 - 17:07 — klanders65It is not happening randomly. Randomly would be much more equitable. btw, if you are in the arts, why the 256 in your name here? I thought for sure with a name like that you would be an engineer.
Trivia
Sun, 01/24/2010 - 23:18 — SDR256Old reference to a basic electronic color palette. I'm dating myself. ;)
I went back and edited,
Sat, 01/23/2010 - 02:33 — klanders65I went back and edited, paragraph returns go away and it is hard to read.
Sorry about that.
I am reading other blogs and seeing TPG is bailing. OMG. This is huge. I need to figure out how to contact her. We all studied history and you wonder how in the world people let different things happen. Well, folks, this is it. We are letting this happen. TPG should not bail.
Yes
Sat, 01/23/2010 - 10:44 — lferreriI agree. TPG brings great insight into different topics, especially the reduced expectations for ED kids. Other people show interest and compassion but she knows what's it's like firsthand and knows that it can be different. We need her voice.
I will contact her directly and see if I can help to get her back.
Data analysis
Fri, 01/22/2010 - 23:20 — lferreriCould SAS analyze the data to determine who is being placed in eighth grade Algebra? You said that teachers only want the highest scoring kids in 8th grade Algebra so that the EOC scores will be good. By highest scoring, do you mean those with the highest grades or those scoring highest on the EOG? In other words, if someone like SAS analyzed the data, would we find that those kids with the highest predicted chance of success are being placed? Or is it based more on SES and race? The study that E & R did indicated that minority students who do well on the EOG sometimes (often?) get lower grades than white and Asian students. Is it their grades that are keeping them out of Algebra? Is it a failure to get a teacher recommendation? Since the counselors are pushing for them to be offered advanced courses, it would seem as if it has to be one of these two things. Would moving to placement based only on EVAAS combat this?
I know there are two issues here: poorer early preparation and failure to secure placement in advanced classes. As I said below, I think the second problem can be fixed faster than the first one. I agree with you that it is distressing that the WCPSS is now talking about how much they have done to fix this. Even the op-ed piece admits that they have been working on it for almost three years but have not changed their placement criteria.
What do you think of the argument that there are not enough available teachers to teach middle school Algebra? Is this a real problem or is the "scarcity" of seats in Algebra being created deliberately? If it's a real problem, what are other places like Greensboro doing that they are able to attract middle school teachers who can teach Algebra (as the SAS report indicates) while the WCPSS cannot?
Yes, SAS could analyze the
Fri, 01/22/2010 - 23:37 — klanders65Yes, SAS could analyze the data and see whether the highest scoring kids are being tracked high and they would find the are not. Notice that article said that "any student enrolled in pre-algebra meeting two of the three criteria met district recommendations to be placed in Algebra 1."
First of all, the low income and minority students never made it to pre-algebra so they are not even among these she is talking about. And note the article says "met district recommendations to be place..." NOT "were placed." And note also that two of the three criteria are subjective (teacher recommendations and course grades).
The only reason there is any objective part at all to the criteria is because the school counselors lobbied for more than 3 years (curriculum audit has nothing to do with it-they are just trying to make it sound like this is what uncovered it for them because it looks a lot better than saying the school counselors discovered this years ago and we have been fighting them ever since to get them to let well enough alone and let everyone else handle math placement.) You are right, a WCPSS showed course grades are correlated to EOG differently for the races with high EOG minorities having lower grades and vice versa.
There are 3, not 2 problems. Actually 4 separate problems:
1. Poor early preparation
2. Access denied to advanced track at the only place students enter the advanced track, which is 6th grade. Kids predicted to succeed are tracked low, for all races, but disproportionately for minorities.
3. Middle school math teachers want only high EOC Alg I scores so they don't want anyone in 8th grade Alg who will not score very high. They only have to select from the kids who made it through the filters listed above as 1 & 2. So, they have mostly non ED and white students to filter now. But they do filter. They take only those who they think of as A students. (Who knows what makes them think of a kid as an A student.) They can get around the placement criteria because these kids need to meet 2 of 3 criteria and 2 of the 3 are subjective and the teacher assigns them. At this point, the criteria is no different than no criteria.
4. Our math course system is set up so that only students who take Algebra in 8th grade can go on to take rigorous meaningful math courses in high school.
The "Participation Gap" is better described as an "Opportunity Gap."
In answer to your math teacher question, there are not enough middle school math teachers who can teach algebra. Not even close. As math graduation requirements have increased, the demand for math teachers has increased. I don't know how Guilford got enough. Wake should be looking at these things, but instead they are taking 3 years (which is really more than 3) to think, and make subject placement criteria that they don't follow.