http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/education_seminar_series/algebrapaper-011212.pdf
The Aftermath of Accelerating Algebra: Evidence from a District
Policy Initiative
by Charles T. Clotfelter, Helen F. Ladd, Jacob L. Vigdor - #18161 (ED)

Abstract:

In 2002/03, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools in North Carolina
initiated a broad program of accelerating entry into algebra
coursework. The proportion of moderately-performing students taking
algebra in 8th grade increased from half to 85%, then reverted to
baseline levels, in the span of just five years. We use this
policy-induced variation to infer the impact of accelerated entry
into algebra on student performance in math courses as students
progress through high school. Students affected by the acceleration
initiative scored significantly lower on end-of-course tests in
Algebra I, and were either significantly less likely or no more
likely to pass standard follow-up courses, Geometry and Algebra II,
on a college-preparatory timetable. Although we also find that the
district assigned teachers with weaker qualifications to Algebra I
classes in the first year of the acceleration, this reduction in
teacher quality accounts for only a small portion of the overall
effect.

********************************************************

From the paper:

'Our results indicate that Charlotte-Mecklenburg’s acceleration
initiative worsened the Algebra I test scores of affected students and
reduced their likelihood of progressing through a college-preparatory
curriculum. Moderately-performing students who were accelerated into
Algebra I in 8th grade scored one-third of a standard deviation worse
on the state end-of-course exam, were 18 percentage points less likely
to pass Geometry by the end of 11th grade, and were 11 percentage
points less likely to pass Algebra II by the end of 12th grade,
compared to otherwise similar students in birth cohorts that were not
subjected to the policy. Lower-achieving students who were accelerated
into taking the course in 9th grade also exhibited significant
declines in all outcomes considered. By contrast, higher-performing
students who were accelerated into Algebra I in 7th grade, despite
receiving lower test scores on the Algebra I test, showed no ill
effects on subsequent course completion.'

************************************************

There is a tendency for policymakers to notice that people who do X (go to college, take AP classes, take algebra in 8th grade) have better outcomes and to then push everyone to do X. This is unfounded, because different people are suited to different educational paths, depending on their IQs, their personalities, and other factors.

I'd agree, except that these students probably didn't have optimal math instruction leading up to the acceleration either. The other factors have to include the environment, and in this case it seems that the poor area schools may be limiting many students. But even in general, the idea that simply accelerating average students will improve performance is ridiculous!

A quick search for previous work of the authors turns up some interesting results, including these findings from a quick skim of two papers of theirs:

Classroom segregation increased in North Carolina from 2000/01 through 2005/06, continuing a general previous trend, and increased sharply in Charlotte-Mecklenburg ("School Segregation under Color-blind Jurisprudence: The Case of North Carolina", Clotfelter, Ladd & Vigdor, 2008). In addition, teacher quality is distributed very unevenly among North Carolina schools to the clear disadvantage of minority students and those from low-income families in areas including Charlotte-Mecklenburg ("Teacher Mobility, School Segregation, and Pay-Based
Policies to Level the Playing Field", Clotfelter, Ladd & Vigdor, 2010).

These authors seem to be chronicling long-standing problems in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg area and elsewhere in NC, which especially afflict lower-income students, which in the case of Charlotte-Mecklenburg probably form a large part of the students who underperformed as a result of the acceleration plan. In context, I'm guessing that the algebra acceleration was attempted as a quick patch for educational problems that probably begin in kindergarten for these underserved children.

This sort of thing happens because social scientists love causation fallacies. The cause of collegiate success isn't being in 8th grade algebra, it's whatever set of circumstances set a child up to be taking 8th grade algebra. What they thought was the end of the research was really just the beginning.

You are right lucounu. A school district near ours implemented early Algebra 1 for just the reasons you state. They felt like the lower performing students/schools didn't have access to the accelerated material and that offering accelerated material would improve their performance. They found that it didn't, cited the article referenced here, and decided to eliminate ALL acceleration because kids just aren't ready for Algebra before high school and if they are put into it, they don't learn it well. Then, on the assumption that all kids need the same "opportunities", they eliminated all acceleration. If one child can't do the work, no child should be allowed to do the work.


Where people got the idea that all kids have the same needs astounds me. Any parent knows that each of their kids is different, and will not excel at everthing. Why don't the policy makers get this? The reasoning is that in a democracy, education is for everyone. But, I personally think they have lost sight of the definition of education. Still, the reasoning sells and is the platform for many school board candidates. The ones who argue against "one size fits all" are not being elected. To me, that means that the voting public wants the current educational policy.

I so wish that we would offer a variety of programs for a variety of kids instead of trying to make everyone meet the same standards. Sure we should have minimum standards, but they should be just that. The minimum. Every "educated" kid should reach them no matter what, and then beyond that, the programs need to offer variety based on skills, abilities, interests.

Also from the article:

This is all very strange to me. A recent thread discussing early admission into AP courses has messages about school policies barring entry into AP courses before a certain grade (e.g. Kai's message on June18 at 6:32 pm). Why is algebra so magically special that it's okay to push every kid into it before most of them are ready, but we risk ending civilization as we know it ( ) if we let a HG+ kid take an AP course in 10th grade?

ETA: MoN, that's painful.

There is a way to determine if someone is ready for Algebra.

Throwing a bunch of classes at kids without understanding if they are ready is "cargo cult" education.

There are real opportunity costs in education. Spending time in a class that the child is not ready for takes away from a class that they CAN do which can then allow them to progress.

This study just highlights the opportunity costs.

I agree with Bostonian and Iucounu; causation fallacy produced by misinterpretation of a correlation.

We've seen this locally in terms of pressure to place high school students of moderate ability into AP coursework, too.

MOST kids just aren't prepared/able/ready for 'advanced' material. Duh. That's what makes it "advanced" material; if it were suitable for the middle of the distribution, it would be the standard already, no?

Placing all (well, all average and up) learners into advanced coursework is just asinine and, I'd argue, somewhat cruel. That's no different than expecting a profoundly intellectually disabled child to do standard curriculum at standard pacing in order to "keep up with peers" in a regular classroom. Cruel. Because some kids realy cannot manage it, and it just sets them up for failure. Unfairly so, really.

We see this quite a bit in our local district-- it's a regular pressure cooker because of parent demands and expectations. Our district touts that 25-30% of their students are "GT" according to the state's definition of the term. So most kids take one or more AP courses in 11th or 12th grade. Of course, that also means that even capable 9th-10th graders have no room to get into those classes.

More ominously, it means that the suicide rate and mental health disorders among the high schoolers here are frighteningly high. (We have two high-tech employers, a major regional medical center, and a land-sea-space grant university in a town of 55K residents. So yeah-- not hard to do the math and figure out how many terminally-degreed households that adds up to be.)

Not offering any of those opportunities at all limits the potential achievement of those (unusual) students who are ready, eager and able, but pushing ill-prepared students into them is no better.

Reality is a pretty harsh taskmaster, unfortunately-- what the 'haves' (in an educational sense) possess that the have-nots do not, is, in spite of all efforts to ignore it, probably not something that can be "given" to a person via tangible means.

Opportunity costs indeed.

But the problem is that we aren't expecting enough of the middle. Some kids are held back because they aren't asked to do much. In my above average school district (ranked near the top in the country on scores), they don't push the middle kids to excel. That's a major reason for people moving to private schools. Public school pushes kids to pass the test and no more.

However, I totally agree that it's silly to look at a few parameters of what the successful people do and then to make policy to give those parameters to the masses.

Same problem here in our school district (state). We also (our school district) aren't giving "the middle" enough opportunity to excel. We're all here as parents of exceptionally gifted kids and therefore see these problems in the light of our children's challenges, but fwiw, even though it's on a less radical level, kids of average intelligence and ability in many schools aren't getting the challenge they really can fly with.

polarbear

I most certainly agree with that sentiment in a more general sense. I see that, too, on a state-wide level. The local phenomenon is more of a Garrison Keillor effect-- everyone's child is "above average" here. Even if they aren't.

Now, there is probably some validity to the notion that our local mean skews a bit high relative to state and national averages. (Heck, the state that I'm in skews about five IQ points higher than the national average, and my county far higher than that... so a ballpark estimate is that 'average' IQ scores in the district might really be about 110-- but still...)

Anyway, point is that expecting more critical thinking of all learners is probably a good thing. But that means not spending all of the class time focused on moving the second-to-lowest quartile up into "meets standard" range on the almighty annual assessments. That is not going to happen anytime soon in the 'standard' classes, I fear.

Ergo the students with the best opportunities for meaningful learning in their individual proximal zones are, ironically, those in the lowest quartile in 'remedial' coursework, and those in the top quartile (less the ones like our own kids who are mostly in the top 1% or so) who are in 'accelerated/enriched' material. I agree with the notion that the enrichment available to those students could easily be beneficial to the students in the middle two quartiles as well. If only we (as a nation) weren't so fixated on standardized testing, that might actually become a reality; the evidence is quite clear that higher expectations and richer instruction benefit students of ALL abilities.

No wonder parents want their kids in enriched classrooms-- even if the only way to get them there is to coach them into "GT" status. Personally, I obviously don't favor that approach because it necessarily means diluting the level and pace of appropriate instruction for those GT classes, but I can certainly understand parental frustration with the "standard" (and AYP focussed) offerings.

What is unconscionable is that administrators and educators buy into this kind of fallacious thinking-- that by PLACING kids in those environments with higher-ability classmates, we'll automatically get higher performance from everyone. It's the wrong mechanistic explanation, basically, and it costs resources (and quality of education for all students) to get that equation wrong.

In short, while I stand by my belief that plenty of kids that do NOT belong there are being shuttled into GT and/or accelerated coursework (at least locally, but I suspect this is true on a national level too, given the relative popularity and resonance of pieces like "Race to Nowhere,"), it is simultaneously the case that the WAY in which children as a whole are being taught science and mathematics is deeply, maybe even profoundly flawed, and highly skewed toward 'basic proficiency' rather than a mastery model that seeks/expects excellence.

All kids deserve better.