PAUSD Math Placement Writ of Mandate – Explained
July 30, 2023: Update on compliance process and July 23 court order
On February 6, 2023 the court granted a writ of mandate ordering Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) to revise its math placement practices. The order was signed by Honorable Carrie A. Zepeda. (link case number 21CV385694) This document explains the ruling and its significance to district practices throughout California and to PAUSD families.
The ruling found PAUSD to be in violation of sections of the CA Education Code:
EDC 51224.7 (the Math Placement Act)
EDC 51228.2 (school district cannot force students to repeat classes they have already completed).
The CA education code is intended to promote math education that allows all students to achieve their potential. The legislature recognizes that strong public math education enables social mobility and equality of opportunity, and is in the interest of the economy (preparing a qualified STEM workforce) as well as the global competitiveness of the US.
The ruling applies to the placement of students entering 9th grade (high school) into math courses. In a nutshell, math content is organized in the form of content standards. Students that are proficient in the content standards of a course can advance to the next course in the sequence, no matter how this proficiency was gained. Advancing to the next course can be based on completing an external UC-approved course or on a proficiency exam that is standardized and calibrated. PAUSD is also required to be transparent on its math placement policy and collect and share aggregate data.
Why a legal action?
Those that are uninitiated with the issues might be surprised that a petition was even needed to get a school district to comply with the education code. Why wasn’t the law followed in the first place? Why not simply place students properly?
The backdrop are misguided trends in math education that encourage districts to address differences in math achievement by slowing the progress for all students. The trends call for delaying access to advanced courses (such as Algebra in middle school) and limiting acceleration opportunities: “Lowering the ceiling” (a term coined by Bob Moses) instead of doing the hard work, which is “raising the floor” (proper targeted support for struggling and less-resourced students). The practices around “lowering the ceiling” are not evidence-based and tend to increase opportunity gaps and distract from "raising the floor."
These trends were promoted in an early proposed draft of the California Math Framework (CMF), which is now under revision after significant backlash. PAUSD, an affluent district, and San Francisco Unified (SFUSD), a large urban district, are both influenced by these trends. SFUSD was even mentioned as a successful model in the first draft of the CMF, but after significant issues were revealed in its reporting of results, these references were removed. Regardless, multiple districts, including large urban ones, seem to be still considering adoption of these practices.
The playbook for “lowering the ceiling” goes as follows:
(i) District removes flexible pathways and restricts acceleration options. Families are told that these actions are beneficial to their students (without solid evidence but often with claims of such).
(ii) Families (those that are informed and can) are concerned and respond by enrolling their students in private/charter schools or in external math courses so that they can continue to progress at an appropriate pace to reach their potential and achieve their goals.
(iii) District makes it difficult for students to progress in the math sequence based on outside work. For example, a student that successfully completes a UC-approved Algebra I course outside the district is either required to repeat the course (e.g. by saying the course must be taken in-district as a “graduation requirement”) or required to pass a “validation test” (terminology used at PAUSD and SFUSD). These validation tests are designed in-house and are not standardized, normed, or calibrated to match the level of students that completed the school course. They claim to test for “mastery” (e.g. proficiency of Algebra I content standards is insufficient) but often are so difficult that most proficient students fail (e.g. see analysis of data from PAUSD).
(iv) District avoids collecting achievement data, misrepresents it, or does not share it. They praise themselves and claim success.
This playbook is contrary to evidence-based education policy, widens opportunity gaps, lowers overall achievement and preparation of students for college-level STEM, and is also contrary to the aims of the CA Math Placement Act. The students that are less resourced are harmed disproportionally.
SFUSD is an example of a district that used this playbook. In a highly controversial move, SFUSD stopped offering Algebra I to its middle schoolers in 2014. This widened opportunity gaps as limitations like this cause students with resources to either go to private school (30% of SF students) or supplement math outside of school. SFUSD uses the mentioned validation test to force students that successfully completed a UC approved Algebra course outside of SFUSD to repeat the course in 9th grade. For more details on the controversy at SFUSD see the following opinion piece.
Significance of the ruling:
The granted petition serves as case law that applies to school districts throughout the state of California that are in violation of the education code. In particular, it makes tactics (iii) in the playbook moot and tactics (iv) difficult to use. The following current practices are violations of the Ed code:
SFUSD's use of validation tests to force incoming 9th graders that successfully completed UC-approved Algebra courses outside the district to retake these courses.
PAUSD requirement that Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 must be taken in the district (and must be repeated if taken outside the district).
In both cases, districts are denying students that gained proficiency outside the district the opportunity to progress in the math sequence as they enter 9th grade. The order improves prospects for students that are bound to public schools because external courses and independent work are within reach of many families that can not afford private education. This granted petition will hopefully encourage districts that practice lowering the ceiling to shift their focus to raising the floor. The petition also implies that the legal requirement of collecting and reporting aggregate data should be taken seriously. This promotes accountability and the use of evidence-based approaches.
Click here for relevant background on PAUSD, concerns with math pathways and placement, and what led to the filing of the petition.
The petition was in the making for two years and was filed by concerned parents that are also STEM professionals. The aim was to address what were clearly harmful and senseless district practices. The petition was filed as a last resort after years of collecting and presenting data, supporting and informing hundreds of impacted families and students, and communicating with leadership. In short, these issues and violations were pointed out to PAUSD leadership over the last five years.
The powers at play are complex. PAUSD is an affluent district with diverse students: 10% are socioeconomically disadvantaged. The remaining families are highly educated and affluent and are roughly evenly divided between foreign-born STEM immigrants and locally-born parents. Voting power is concentrated in the latter group. Differences in family priorities created tensions in the community as it experienced demographic shifts. These tensions influenced the practices around math placement.
The majority of PAUSD students exceed state standards. But there is a very large math achievement spread due to opportunities, varied family priorities and attitudes towards math, and insufficient targeted support combined with inconsistent quality of math instruction in the early grades (where less-resourced students often fall behind).
PAUSD currently (from 2020 in what was described as an experiment) offers a single K-8 math pathway. The intention was to de-lane (remove flexible tracks) and center the offering on the “middle band” of PAUSD students. The pathway does not include adequate support for struggling students or effective acceleration options for those that are ready. It turned out to be a game of optics that does not serve students well, in particular, the ⅓ of students that are 1+ years ahead of placement and the ⅕ of students that are 1+ years behind placement. Those behind, fall farther behind. Those above, are forced to repeat content. Those correctly placed are also impacted by ineffective classrooms where teachers struggle to support students. See here for data (via PRAs). PAUSD uses both uncalibrated validation tests and administrative requirements of taking Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 in the district to block acceleration of students that are ready.
This ruling will force PAUSD to properly place all its students as they enter high school. The required reporting of aggregate placement data will showcase the two ends of the misplacement problem (those held back and those that are dead-ended from continuing with STEM by being passed foundational courses without proficiency). This will hopefully encourage this very well resourced district to properly place students earlier in middle school and properly support its struggling students, especially those less resourced.
The two main points are the following:
All students entering high school will soon have the opportunity to be placed according to their math level based on courses and/or independent work completed outside PAUSD. They will not have to repeat UC requirements that were completed elsewhere.
PAUSD will have to be transparent on its math placement protocol, including recourse options. It will have to collect and transparently share data on placement outcomes. Transparency would benefit everyone as it facilitates accountability and feedback that leads to improvement.
Click here to see additional details
All students will be assessed for proper placement at the beginning of 9th grade. Proper placement is based on the knowledge and level of the student no matter how this knowledge was gained.
If a student wishes to skip the next level in a sequence based on independent work, they will have the option (in 9th grade) of taking a proficiency assessment. This means you could use Khan Academy and then test out of Algebra*.
Placement assessment upon entering 9th grade will be fair and standardized. It is not acceptable to make the 9th grade placement exam for students that learned outside of PAUSD harder than the level achieved by students who successfully completed the prior PAUSD courses.
High school students that satisfied UC admission requirements by successfully completing UC-approved courses outside PAUSD may no longer be forced to repeat courses that satisfy the same requirements.
PAUSD will have to collect data on math placement and share it with governing bodies and the community. The math placement policy will have to be public, easy to find, sensible, and transparent. A recourse process will be transparent and fair.
* In terms of UC requirements, Algebra I and Algebra II can be validated using more advanced courses such as precalculus. For Geometry, a completion of a UC-accredited Geometry course is required.
Comments:
There are multiple venues that offer UC-accredited math courses. Two that are affordable and convenient for students enrolled in public schools are UC Scout and APEX.
For better preparation in math, in particular for middle school students that plan to take honors math courses at PAUSD high schools, we recommend that they additionally use a curriculum that teaches math concepts at depth (e.g. Art of Problem Solving or Russian Math). This recommendation applies to all students attending PAUSD middle schools, even those not planning to “skip” courses in the sequence. Our experience is that the current PAUSD middle school sequence does not prepare students well for honors level math courses in high school. Students that acquire solid foundations before high school are more likely to thrive and not require tutoring.
Status Feb 6, 2023:
Judge signed the ruling. PAUSD has 30 days to come up with a plan that satisfies all the points of the order. After that, we will have 10 days to review. One shortcoming is that we weren’t able to directly address issues with the middle school “skip tests” that have been used to hold back students’ progress. This will have to be worked out in the drafting of the new placement policies. However, this ruling pokes holes in the current unaccommodating math placement policy in middle school.
Status Feb 24, 2023:
The Superintendent sent an update letter to all PAUSD families. The letter included a confusing "spin," multiple errors and misrepresentations, and announced changed to the district website that were in effect some changes to the program. The district is still not compliant with the order. See a document that fact-checks the Feb 24 Superintendent update.
Media Coverage: SF Examiner Palo Alto Weekly (2021 Weekly article) Palo Alto Daily Post
A single math pathway to 8th grade Algebra (regardless of students' preparation). This applies to students that entered middle school on or after August 2020. Note that neighboring districts offer flexible pathways that provide additional support and acceleration options. For example, in Los Altos and Cupertino, about 45%-50% of students take Algebra in 7th grade (a year ahead of PAUSD students), there is an option to take Algebra in 8th grade, and there is a “grade level” option for the students that struggle and need the lower pace and additional support. Data shows that the PAUSD highly heterogeneous middle school math courses include many students that are 1+ years below (⅕ of all) and 1+ years above (⅓ of all) their placement.
Students wishing to accelerate (“skip”) have an option to take uncalibrated (super-hard) nonstandardized home-baked validation testing available only at the end of 5th or 6th grade. Only one year may be “skipped”. See here for data (obtained via PRAs) showing that the large majority of students that are ready for acceleration are disqualified.
After the end of 6th grade there are no more opportunities to accelerate until all of Algebra, Geometry, and Algebra 2 are completed in-house at PAUSD.
In particular, there is no placement testing in 9th grade, as required by law. PAUSD claimed in court to be satisfying the legal requirement via readiness tests for a course student was placed at (MDTP test). The judge did not accept this explanation. Readiness test does not check if a student is ready for the next course in the sequence and even students that topped the readiness test for a class are not offered an opportunity to be assessed for readiness for the next course.
Currently, students that learn math outside the district, including by taking UC-approved courses, are forced to repeat the same class in PAUSD. PAUSD states that Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II, must be taken at the district (also see link). (This is a violation of EDC 51228.2 and EDC 51224.5 )
Currently, students that are incoming to a PAUSD high school from outside the district can take a placement test for any course (this is much more flexible than for students coming from the district). However, there is no transparency on what that assessment is and how to prepare for it. PAUSD offers honors/advanced/regular levels courses. The honors level goes well above what is needed to prepare students for BC calculus and many students lane down. In the past, students were given H-lane finals for placement (but without access to course material). The ruling will provide transparency and choice to students.
Currently, there is no discussion of recourse to placement decisions. The district stonewalls families until the request is no longer relevant and much of the school year has passed.
The middle school de-laning experiment was announced on 12/2019 and rolled out 08/2020 without proper methods in place to evaluate whether it benefitted students and without solid evidence supporting it. Moreover, the use of an informative assessment tool (NWEA MAP) for which there were years of data, was abruptly stopped just before the experiment began. As of now (02/2023), in its third year, there was no reporting to the community of results. The order requires the district to report aggregate data on the math level of its rising 9th graders, which this year are the first cohort of this experiment. From what we do know (see next paragraph) this transparency is very much needed.
The information we do have suggest that the PAUSD middle-school pathway is irresponsible experimentation on PAUSD students and especially those less-resourced. State data shows that 11% of PAUSD 7th graders do not meet minimum (spring 2022) grade level standards and 22% are below standards. State standards are a year of curriculum below Algebra I readiness. Also, 70% of PAUSD economically disadvantaged 7th graders but only 17% of those not economically disadvantaged are below grade-level standards. Regardless of readiness, all those students were placed in Algebra I in 8th grade (2022-2023) with no other options. We emphasize that the readiness status was known to PAUSD in a timely manner: CAASPP data is only available in August (late for planning) but PAUSD had data in the spring through district-administered MDTP tests. The majority of PAUSD economically disadvantaged 8th grade students are thus placed in a high paced course for which they are utterly unprepared for. Many of those students do not have the means to get support from outside of school. These students then are passed Algebra I but without proficiency. To retain the optics, PAUSD updated its graduation requirements in 2021 to remove Algebra II (the next Algebra course in sequence and minimum requirement for UC/CSU eligibility) from its high school graduation requirements. PAUSD high school graduation requirements for math used to match the minimum requirements for UC/CSU eligibility. PAUSD now revised them to the minimum the state allows. To elaborate, PAUSD students that are 2 years behind state standards when they enter middle school could still potentially recover with proper intervention support and graduate high school with UC/CSU readiness (Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II). Instead, PAUSD places them in fast-paced courses they are very far from being ready for with no alternatives. Those students then "finish" their math graduation requirements in middle school (except for one course -- Geometry that is left for high school) but are not ready for high school math courses and lack critical foundations in math. This is dead-ending of the students from a STEM career by PAUSD and even from college readiness. Ironically, a decade earlier, PAUSD added Algebra II to its graduation requirements despite controversy claiming it will increase college readiness of less-resourced students. Our hope is that transparency on results will nudge PAUSD away from uninformed experimentation and towards evidence-based education policy.
Gender Gap and title IX: A concerning side effect of PAUSD middle school math placement practices is a large gender gap in the accelerated group. See this data compiled by a parent. (Data was obtained using public record requests. PAUSD claims not to compile this data). The cohort of PAUSD middle school students who were allowed to accelerate their math placement to Algebra, Geometry or above over the three most recent school years (2019-2020 and 2020-2021 and 2021 to 2022 school years) included 259 boys and only 120 girls. PAUSD’s 2:1 M:F math acceleration track record contrasts markedly with peer districts (Los Altos, Cupertino, Saratoga) with 1:1 equal access for M:F to the same advanced math classes in middle school. The ruling determined that there was insufficient evidence to support the claim of Title IX violation. The evidence, however, is there and is compiled from data requested from the district. We believe that rectifying middle school placement should address this important issue.