Maybe a lot more math in the San Fran classrooms, instead of sexual grooming, bullying, hate and racism, the kids could get a real education.
“Over the subsequent several years, SFUSD claimed its controversial policy — sometimes called “detracking” — had been a success. However, in October 2021 a detailed analysis published by Families for San Francisco (an organization I lead) debunked those claims. In fact, SFUSD’s assertions of success were misleading, unsupported and cherry-picked. Even worse, new inequities were introduced that correlated with a further decline in the enrollments and success of our Black and brown students in Algebra 2.
SFUSD has refused to explain the glaring discrepancies between our report and the claims it made for its results. The eminent education scholar Tom Loveless blasted SFUSD in a lengthy blog post. The California Mathematics Framework, which had earlier cited and praised SFUSD in its first draft (published before our report), quietly removed all mention of SFUSD in its second draft. The response from SFUSD? Silence.
San Fran Educrats LIED—and the education of students died. Who will be fired? When will the lawsuits begin. Someone needs to pay for the fraud and corruption of the system and the harm to the children.
A chimera of equity: SFUSD must reckon with its math education failures
By Patrick Wolff, SF Examiner, 2/6/23
Eight years ago, San Francisco United School District eliminated accelerated math classes in middle and high schools, including the option of taking Algebra 1 in eighth grade. The policy idea was that all students would be required to learn together through the same heterogeneous math classes until the end of 10th grade. Only then would students become eligible to take accelerated math courses.
Over the subsequent several years, SFUSD claimed its controversial policy — sometimes called “detracking” — had been a success. However, in October 2021 a detailed analysis published by Families for San Francisco (an organization I lead) debunked those claims. In fact, SFUSD’s assertions of success were misleading, unsupported and cherry-picked. Even worse, new inequities were introduced that correlated with a further decline in the enrollments and success of our Black and brown students in Algebra 2.
SFUSD has refused to explain the glaring discrepancies between our report and the claims it made for its results. The eminent education scholar Tom Loveless blasted SFUSD in a lengthy blog post. The California Mathematics Framework, which had earlier cited and praised SFUSD in its first draft (published before our report), quietly removed all mention of SFUSD in its second draft. The response from SFUSD? Silence.
Unfortunately, SFUSD’s deceptive claims and poor data practices are part of a larger pattern that is depriving all students of the math education they deserve. SFUSD should reform itself by learning from other California school districts that do better.
As reported in The Examiner, Long Beach Unified School District offers many lessons for SFUSD. LBUSD is comparable in size, demographics and socioeconomics and faces many of the same challenges. Yet although LBUSD schools receive less funding per student than SFUSD, their secondary math program produces superior student outcomes to ours.
Three lessons from LBUSD’s math program stand out.
1. Report results with integrity
LBUSD’s reporting of student outcomes is notable for its transparency and clarity. When LBUSD reports its student outcomes, there are no attempts to move the goal posts for what counts as proficiency in “advanced math.” They do not misreport the content of their math courses on student transcripts. They state their results in plain English and their numbers match their claims.
By contrast, SFUSD does not talk about how students are performing relative to its goals for proficiency; instead they trumpet increased enrollments in their self-defined category of “advanced math classes” as evidence of success. Not only is enrollment an inferior metric to proficiency, but the SFUSD list of “advanced math classes” does not even match what the UC system recognizes!
SFUSD also mislabels its Algebra 2-plus-Trigonometry “compression course” as a Precalculus course on student transcripts in spite of UC’s rejection of that designation. And SFUSD celebrates that student graduation rates increased even though student proficiency rates decreased over the same period of time.
Emulating LBUSD’s integrity in reporting student outcomes is a necessary first step in emulating that district’s outstanding improved outcomes for all students, including its Black and Latinx students.
2. Provide secondary math pathways that support both excellence and equity and don’t require workarounds
Long Beach Unified has a coherent, accessible math program that is clearly documented in its district course catalog. The catalog is updated each fall and clearly lays out the various course sequences, options and prerequisites for acceleration, beginning in its middle schools, as well as credit recovery options for students who are struggling. SFUSD offers nothing similar.
LBUSD’s math placement policy outlines a consistent protocol with clear and transparent criteria for student placement in more advanced math courses. The placement policy follows best practices including the use of multiple objective academic measures and a 10-day window for an appeal in the event of a disputed result. By contrast, SFUSD forces students who want to learn geometry in ninth grade to learn algebra on their own time; then it requires students to pass an SFUSD administered “math validation test,” even though SFUSD does not explain how the test is designed or assessed.
In addition to its straightforward placement policy, LBUSD also offers multiple acceleration pathways to accommodate different students’ motivation and readiness to move faster. The district’s middle school acceleration program follows the Common Core recommendations for compacting Math 6, Math 7 and Math 8 into two years’ worth of math courses so that qualified students can take Algebra 1 in eighth grade. And for students who discover their motivation later, LBUSD’s program lays out helpful information about how students can double up on math courses either in person or via the district’s partnership with APEX Learning’s fully accredited online courses.
3. Expand access to acceleration through standardized courses and, if necessary, through third-party or online offerings
SFUSD has written its own curriculum and assumes the full cost of updating, supporting and maintaining it. LBUSD takes a simpler approach: Its secondary math program uses a popular standardized curriculum that provides multiple pathways to reach Calculus by 12th grade. These pathways include a strong middle school option as explained above, enabling students with a C or better in accelerated courses to take Algebra 1 in eighth grade. In this regard, they follow one of the most important guidelines for blending excellence and equity — namely, the importance of not withholding access to acceleration.
Rather than funneling 11th-grade students into an ill-conceived and mislabeled “compression course” that the UC does not accept as a true precalculus course, LBUSD encourages its students to take real, full-year UC-approved online courses, including many of the full-year math offerings from APEX Learning’s online catalog. Indeed, 12 of LBUSD’s AP courses are available to students through its partnership with APEX Learning.
LBUSD partners with families to provide tried and tested math instruction that meets the needs of each student, and reports the results honestly. SFUSD claims to require all students to take the same math sequence, but in recent years, it has been forced to acknowledge the many workarounds that have become an open secret for students and families who wish to pursue acceleration in math. SFUSD has designed its high school math sequence more to justify its own ideology than to serve student needs, and it has reported results more to flatter itself than to reflect student outcomes. Is it any wonder that families have become so frustrated with SFUSD?
Over the last two years, a parent-led revolution has led to a major overhaul in SFUSD leadership. Three school board members were recalled from office, and two of the mayor’s appointed replacements were elected for full four-year terms. The new Board of Education hired a new superintendent, and together they have committed to focus on improving student outcomes.
It is good that SFUSD finally has leadership that wants to focus on improving student outcomes. Doing so requires reckoning with the district’s long-standing failures in math placement policy and access. They should look to LBUSD and follow its lead.
There is an article today on the garbage website that goes under the name CNN. It proposes that black students in higher education can’t compete due to racism and time requirements for other endeavors going on concurrently with their studies.
In truth, the issue is not racism at the college level. Right here we have the evidence that school systems have decided that black kids don’t need an education, math isn’t important for them, most likely as they are going to be pushing brooms, and asking questions like ‘do you want mayonnaise on that sandwich?’ for the rest of their lives. According to the SFUSD kids with that in their future don’t need math.
Racism abounds at SFUSD.
The two great bridges in our area were built using pencil and paper and a slide ruler. This alone tells us that the education system, today, has failed. The “advancement” of Computers and “Smart Phones” has not given us the quality of forward-thinking.
I was a student in the California School System in the 1930s and 40s. The superiority of that education will never, ever, be matched by what is now called education.