What Do the California Standards Test Results Reveal About the Movement Toward Eighth-Grade Algebra for All?

Abstract

In California, an increasing number of 8th graders have taken algebra courses since 2003. This study examines students’ California Standards Test (CST) results in grades 7 through 11, aiming to reveal who took the CST for Algebra I in 8th grade and whether the increase has led to a rise in students’ taking higher-level mathematics CSTs and an improved performance in following years. Results show that the pipeline of 8th-grade algebra and following years’ higher-level mathematics CSTs has a significant leak in it. Furthermore, the longitudinal analysis reveals that 9th-grade students have a 69% greater chance of succeeding in algebra if they passed the CST for General Mathematics in 8th grade compared to those who failed the CST for Algebra I.

Keywords

mathematics education middle school high school education policy

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Achieve

Inc

. (2006). Closing the expectations gap: An annual 50-state progress report on the alignment of high school policies with the demands of college and work. Washington, DC: Author.

Adelman

(1999). Answers in the toolbox: Academic intensity, attendance patterns and bachelor’s degree attainment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Allensworth

E. M.

Nomi

(2009, March). College-preparatory curriculum for all: The consequences of raising mathematics graduation requirements on students’ course taking and outcomes in Chicago. Paper presented at the 2nd annual conference of the Society for Research on Education Effectiveness, Arlington, VA. Retrieved September 20, 2009, from http://www.sree.org/conferences/2009/pages/abstracts/055_college.doc

Association of California School Administrators. (2008, Dec. 29). Algebra I injunction issued [Press Release]. Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved March 6, 2012, from http://www.acsa.org/FunctionalMenuCategories/Media/NewsReleases/2008/AlgebraInjunction.aspx

Bailey

S. K.

(1950). Congress makes a law. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Bransford

J. D.

Brown

A. L.

Cocking

R. R.

(Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning. Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

California Department of Education. (2003). STAR 2003 test results. Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved August 22, 2009, from http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2003/Viewreport.asp

California Department of Education. (2006). Mathematics frameworks for California public schools: Kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved June 14, 2009, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/documents/mathfrwkcomplete.pdf

California Department of Education. (2007). STAR reports. Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved June 30, 2009, from http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2007/Viewreport.asp

10.

California Department of Education. (2008a). 2008 STAR district and test site coordinator manual. Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved August 4, 2008, from http://www.startest.org/pdfs/STARcoord2008.pdf

11.

California Department of Education. (2008b). API information guide. Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved June 30, 2009, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/documents/infoguide08.pdf

12.

California Department of Education. (2008c). California Standards Tests technical report. Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved August 21, 2011, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/documents/csttechrpt07.pdf

13.

California Department of Education. (2011). Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) 2011 test results. Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved September 13, 2011, from http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2011

14.

College Board. (2000). Equity 2000: A systemic education reform model, A summary report, 1990-2000. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved June 14, 2009, from http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/about/association/equity/EquityHistoricalReport.pdf

15.

Evan

Gray

Olchefske

(2006). The gateway to student success in mathematics and science. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.

16.

Gamoran

Hannigan

E. C.

(2000). Algebra for everyone? Benefits of college-preparatory mathematics for students with diverse abilities in early secondary school. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22, 241–254.

17.

Heckman

P. E.

Montera

V. L.

(2009). School reform: The flatworm in a flat world: From entropy to renewal through indigenous invention. Teacher’s College Record, 111, 1328–1351.

18.

Horn

Nuñez

(2000). Mapping the road to college: First-generation students’ math track, planning strategies, and context of support (NCES 2000-153). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

19.

Kriegler

Lee

(2006). Using standardized test data as guidance for placement into 8th grade algebra. Los Angeles, CA: University of California-Los Angeles Math Content for Teachers. Retrieved October 11, 2008, from http://www.introtoalg.org/downloads/Algebra_8th_Grade_Paper.pdf

20.

Liang

J. H.

(2009). Linking eighth- and ninth-grade algebra success to key variables of prior mathematics knowledge and skills: A predictive and comparative analysis. Dissertation Abstracts International, 70(8), 159. (UMI No. 3369854)

21.

Liang

J. H.

Guo

(2007, November). A preliminary study of the California mathematics standards test-taking patterns. Paper presented at the 86th annual California Educational Research Association Conference, Dana Point, CA.

22.

Loveless

(2008). The misplaced math student: Lost in eighth-grade algebra. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute. Retrieved June 30, 2009, from http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/0922_education_loveless.aspx

23.

Loveless

Fennell

F. S.

Williams

Ball

D. L.

Banfield

(2008). Chapter 9: Report of the subcommittee on the national survey of Algebra I teachers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

24.

Moses

R. P.

(1995). Algebra, the new civil right. In Lacampagne

Carol

. (Eds.), The algebra initiative colloquium (Vol. II, pp. 53-67). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

25.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). NAEP 2004 trends in academic progress: Three decades of student performance in reading and mathematics: Findings in brief (NCES 2005-463). Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education.

26.

National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

27.

National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine. (2004). Engaging schools: Fostering high school students’ motivation to learn. Committee on Increasing High School Students’ Engagement and Motivation to Learn; Board on Children, Youth, Families. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academies.

28.

O’Connell

(2008). Algebra I success initiative. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education. Retrieved July 6, 2009, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/re/ht/algebrainitiative.asp

29.

Paris

S. G.

Lawton

T. A.

Turner

J. C.

Roth

J. L.

(1991). A developmental perspective on standardized achievement testing. Educational Researcher, 20(5), 12–20.

30.

Rakes

C. R.

Valentine

J. C.

McGatha

Ronau

R. N.

(2010). Methods of instructional improvement in algebra: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 80, 372–400.

31.

Richardson

(1996). From behaviorism to constructivism in teacher education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 19, 263–271.

32.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.

33.

Smith

(1996). Does an extra year make any difference? The impact of early access to algebra on long-term gains in mathematics achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18, 141–153.

34.

Spielhagen

F. R.

(2006). Closing the achievement gap in math: The long-term effects of eighth-grade algebra. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18, 34–59.

35.

Spillane

J. P

Reiser

B. J.

Reimer

(2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72, 387–431.

36.

State Board of Education. (2008). July meeting minutes, item 10. Retrieved July 3, 2009, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/mt/ms/documents/finalminutes0708.doc

37.

Stevenson

D. L.

Schiller

K. S.

Schneider

(1994). Sequences of opportunities for learning. Sociology of Education, 67, 184–198.

38.

Thompson

P. W.

(2008). On professional judgment and the national mathematics advisory panel report: Curricular content. Educational Researcher, 37, 582–587.

39.

Torlakson

(2011, August 15). 2011 STAR program results showing California students continue to improve [News Release #11-55]. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education. Retrieved August 21, 2011, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr11/yr11rel55.asp

40.

University of California. (2007). Subject requirement (A-G coursework). Retrieved June 30, 2009, from http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/undergrad_adm/paths_to_adm/freshman/subject_reqs.html

41.

Webster-Wright

(2009). Reframing professional development through understanding authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79, 702–739.

42.

Williams

Haertel

Kirst

M. W.

Rosin

Perry

(2011a). Improving middle grades math performance: A closer look at district and school policies and practices, course placements, and student outcomes in California. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.

43.

Williams

Haertel

Kirst

M. W.

Rosin

Perry

(2011b). Preparation, placement, proficiency: Improving middle grades math performance [Policy and Practice Brief]. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.