July 8, 2008
Dear County and District Superintendents and Charter School Administrators:
I would like to share important information regarding the proposed eighth grade math blueprint that will be heard tomorrow by the State Board of Education (SBE). For several months now the SBE has had before it my recommendation to replace the current eighth grade General Mathematics test with a more rigorous assessment based on Algebra standards. The SBE has twice heard this item but not yet acted. This Wednesday the item is expected to be considered for a third time.
While in all three of these instances the only item under consideration has been the blueprint, based on ongoing negotiations with representatives of the Governor, the SBE, and key education stakeholders, I am concerned that an alternate proposal being considered has the potential of greatly impacting you and the students you serve — namely, the Governor might recommend that every eighth grade student be required to take Algebra I within three years.
First let me give you a bit of background. Based on a U.S. Department of Education (ED) peer review of our assessment system, California is out of compliance because the current General Mathematics test assesses standards from grades six and seven yet is administered to eighth grade students not enrolled in an Algebra I course.
As you know, in California, grades two through seven have grade-level specific content standards; grades eight through twelve do not (students in grade eight and above take end-of-course assessments based on standards that are subject specific, not grade-level specific). While the state’s desired goal is for all students to take Algebra I as early as they are ready for it (eighth grade for most students), California does not require that all students in grade eight take Algebra I. Instead, students are enrolled in an appropriate mathematics course based on their current level of achievement with the requirement that all students pass an Algebra course to obtain a high school diploma.
After lengthy correspondence the ED provided California with two options: (1) require all grade eight students to enroll in Algebra I within three years; or (2) develop a new test based only on Algebra I standards (though not necessarily encompassing all Algebra I standards). This new assessment would replace the General Mathematics test as an alternative for eighth grade students not completing Algebra I. I recommended the latter course of action because it improves on the current system by increasing rigor while
providing the greatest flexibility for local educators to make the best decisions for their students.
We then developed the proposed blueprint based on extensive conversations with practitioners and both psychometric and subject matter experts. In addition, we thoroughly reviewed newly adopted Algebra I textbooks and available courses taken by students not enrolled in Algebra I to ensure alignment between instruction and this new assessment. The result is a blueprint aligned to Algebra I standards that would be appropriate for students enrolled in such courses as pre-algebra, algebra readiness, or the first year of a two-year algebra course.
Therefore, tomorrow I will once again ask the SBE to approve the blueprint which I believe best protects a district’s discretion in sequencing math courses in grades eight through twelve while also meeting the Federal No Child Left Behind requirement. However, as mentioned before, the SBE may consider California entering a compliance agreement with the ED that would require all grade eight students take Algebra I within three years.
I have strong reservations about requiring all eighth grade students to take Algebra I within 3 years without also offering any additional changes, support, or resources for our public school system. I also reached my conclusion after seriously considering the available data. It is important to note that a little less than half of eighth grade students in California currently take General Mathematics. For that roughly half of the eighth grade population, a disturbingly low 23 percent is proficient or advanced on what amounts to seventh grade standards. When we disaggregate this data, we also find disturbing achievement gaps with African Americans at 13 percent proficiency and Hispanics at 16 percent. To suggest that we simply enroll these struggling students in Algebra I without any additional support or instruction would be, I believe, highly irresponsible. I make that statement strong in my belief that every child can and should succeed in Algebra in eighth grade. But without putting the proper resources into place such as ensuring subject matter expertise for teachers at every grade level, providing consistent, high-quality standards-aligned professional development, and ensuring a minimum available amount of instructional minutes for mathematics, we cannot expect our students to succeed when we adults have not done our part. Therefore I cannot accept a requirement to mandate eighth grade Algebra I for all students without a complementary agreement between the state and districts guaranteed increased flexibility and assistance for meeting this goal.
It is also worth noting that because of ED’s process, simply doing nothing and maintaining the status quo is not an acceptable solution. ED has informed us that if we do not have a compliance agreement by the end of this month they will proceed with penalties. Because they have deemed our General Mathematics test out of compliance,
these penalties would almost assuredly result in any middle school that does not test at least 95 percent of its eighth grade students in Algebra I to immediately fail Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Doing nothing would also impact any program waiver, flexibility, or pilot that is contingent upon a fully approved assessment system. For example, California would no longer be eligible for the differentiated accountability and intervention pilot; growth model pilot; and authority to allow special education pupils to take the California Modified Assessment (CMA). So students who took the CMA this past spring would likely not be counted as participating, also significantly impacting AYP.
I am sending this letter because of my strong concern that a decision of this magnitude should never be considered without significant input from those of you doing the hard work every day of educating our children, I will, of course, also keep you informed of any action the SBE or the ED takes regarding this issue. If you have any questions on this topic, please contact Deb Sigman, Deputy Superintendent, Assessment and Accountability Branch, at 916-319-0812.
Sincerely,
JACK O’CONNELL
JO:mc
1430 N Street
Sacramento, CA 95814