Inequity in Numbers
Call for an Investigation: The Reality Behind SFUSD’s Self-Promoted Math Course Sequence
NOTE: To read our full-report and ‘View the Data’ related to our report, click on the buttons at bottom of this post.
California is actively considering the adoption of flawed and inequitable guidance on math curricula based on misleading data and inaccurate success metrics reported by San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD). In 2014, SFUSD introduced a new K-12 math course sequence to address issues of inequity in math learning. The curriculum delays Algebra 1 by one year and mandates all students to take the same set of courses sequentially from 8th to 10th grade. For the past seven years, SFUSD has traveled nationwide celebrating its successes in spite of lacking evidence for such claims. Their claims have even influenced the proposed redesign of the math education framework for the entire state of California.
Concerned community members are demanding transparency from SFUSD but have consistently been denied access to supporting data. Through an analysis of enrollment data reported to the California Department of Education (CDE) and limited responses to California Public Records Act (CPRA) requests, it is evident that SFUSD is hiding information that contradicts their claims.
Based on our review of the data, we found misleading, unsupported, and cherry-picked assertions of success for the new math program. We noted that overall test scores are down and enrollments in UC-approved advanced math classes have dropped as well. Even more worrying, we found the new math sequence created a new set of inequities that likely caused the declining enrollments of Black and brown students in Algebra 2 by the end of 10th grade.
As part of SFUSD’s internal math curriculum redesign, the SFUSD Math Department set itself three main goals to measure its success. Each of SFUSD’s goals is detailed below and analyzed in terms of the gaps in data, misleading claims, and refusal to show its work and evidence.
Goal 1: Reduce the number of students forced to retake Algebra 1, Geometry, or Algebra 2 by 50% from numbers recorded for 6/2013
Claims: In a September 2017 press release SFUSD claims a "dramatic increase in student comprehension" and a drop in Algebra 1 repeaters from 40% to 7%. The press release states that this was found through a “longitudinal data” review of the last class of high school graduates who completed Algebra 1 in 8th grade (Class of 2018) and the first class of high school graduates who were prohibited from that option (Class of 2019). A 2019 case study also attributes the reduction of repeat rate to detracking.
Rating: Misleading
Facts: The grade distribution we received from SFUSD showed no improvement at all in Algebra 1 grades. The repeat rate did come down, but only because in 2015 SFUSD eliminated the requirement to pass the Algebra 1 California Standards Test (CST) exit exam as a condition of progressing. The effect of this change was later partially acknowledged by the Math department in the speaker's notes in one of their presentation slides in 2020: "The drop from 40% of students repeating Algebra 1 to 8% of students repeating Algebra 1, we saw as a one-time major drop due to both the change in course sequence and the change in placement policy." Finally, in conducting our review of SFUSD’s claims, we were unable to obtain any such “longitudinal data” they refer to nor could we replicate the repeat rate numbers quoted by SFUSD using data obtained via a CPRA request. We have deep concerns that SFUSD is claiming credit for student achievement that is either untrue or unsubstantiated by the data or both.
Goal 2: Increase the number of students who take and pass 4th year math courses (post- Algebra 2 courses) with a C or better by 10% by 6/2018.
Claims: In a November 2018 presentation to the California School Board Association, the Math department discusses “SFUSD GROWTH IN ADVANCED MATH COURSES (COURSES BEYOND ALGEBRA 2)“ and claims that "456 more students, or 10.4% more students are taking courses beyond Algebra 2 in 2018-2019 than were in 2017-2018." The San Francisco Chronicle also reported a similar claim in January 2019.
Rating: Misleading
Facts: Enrollment in advanced math classes at SFUSD has gone down, not up, and SFUSD has produced no data about pass rates. Advanced math is commonly understood to mean courses beyond Algebra 2, including Precalculus, Statistics, and Calculus; however, SFUSD’s claim that its enrollment in “Advanced Math” enrollment has increased depends entirely on counting students enrolled in its “compression course” -- a third-year course combining Algebra 2 with Precalculus. The problem with this framing is that the University of California (UC) rejected SFUSD’s classification of its compression class as an advanced math course due to its failure to meet UC standards for Precalculus content. Once we exclude the enrollment data for the compression course, the enrollment number for advanced math shows a net decrease from 2017-2018 (the final cohort prior to the implementation of the new math course sequence).
Goal 3: Increase AP Math enrollment & pass rate for Latino & African American students by 20% by 6/2018
Claims: In a November 2018 presentation to the California School Board Association, SFUSD boasts that (a) “AP Math enrollment has also increased over a two-year period from 2016-17 to 2018-19”; (b) that “AP Statistics enrollment has increased 48.4%”; and (c) that Latinx AP Math enrollment increased 27% over the same period.
Rating: Inconclusive, as SFUSD releases data only on enrollments and not on the pass rates for the official AP Math exams.
Facts: Whether SFUSD met its original goal to increase Latinx and African American AP Math enrollment by 20% from June 2014 to June 2018 is unknown because in spite of our requests, SFUSD has not produced complete data for this period. For the two-year period from 2016–2017 to 2018–2019, African Americans are not listed among “subgroups who met or exceeded the 10% growth target” and SFUSD has not disclosed any performance outcomes. The five-year data for school years 2016-2017 through 2020-2021 shows that enrollment by African American students has fluctuated from year to year while enrollment by Latinx students has been more or less on the rise. And because SFUSD does not release data on the pass rate for AP Math exams, its success rate is unknowable.
Meanwhile, the claim of increased AP Math enrollment overall is misleading. The number of SFUSD students overall taking AP Calculus is down. The number taking AP Statistics is up but it is concentrated at three specific school sites (Lowell, Ruth Asawa SOTA and Balboa). The other schools showed no significant increase.
NEW INEQUITIES INTRODUCED
Since 2014, San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) has exacerbated and deepened inequities for Black and brown students through its new math framework. By the end of 10th grade, Algebra 2 enrollments of Black and brown students have declined because most students cannot afford the costly work-arounds afforded by their white and Asian counterparts. There are three pathways to accelerate within the new math framework:
Students can complete Algebra 1 at a private middle school or take an approved, fee-based course outside of SFUSD and also pass a test to be placed into Geometry in 9th grade.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors funds a limited number of Summer School Geometry program seats for which students can enter a lottery to take an abbreviated Geometry course during the summer.
Individual PTSAs within select high schools fund additional course seats and sections during the school year so that any attending student can double up on math courses and avoid the compression course’s incomplete coverage of Precalculus content.
Relying on this patchwork system of for-pay workarounds to reach advanced math is inequitable and unfair to students who cannot afford and navigate these opportunities to accelerate.
In addition to SFUSD Math’s limited acceleration options, the available data indicates Latinx and African American students preparing to take Calculus in their 12th grade year are disproportionately reliant on the compression course which many of SFUSD’s own educators believe provides an inadequate preparation for AP Calculus.
By choking off students’ options to accelerate and designing a math curriculum that barely meets UC standards, the new framework is making San Francisco students less college-competitive statewide. The new framework relies on a problematic compression course that is missing approximately 75% of the state’s precalculus “+” standards, where the “+” standards are defined as “additional mathematics to prepare students for advanced courses,” thus setting up students for failure if they plan on taking further advanced math courses in college.
CONCLUSION
Given this detailed report, The State of California should not uncritically accept the claims put forth by SFUSD regarding the success of its math framework without a full peer-reviewable assessment of SFUSD’s data and methods. An objective evaluation of the new math sequence is urgently needed to verify and assess program metrics before being used as the basis of new math guidance for all students in the State of California.