Educational Improvement Project

Scholarly Support Summary

Department of Education, Purdue University

Fall 2023 EDCI 52004-001 DIS: Teachers as Leader

Introduction and Background

The tracking of students for instruction in mathematics is a long-standing practice of

schooling that segregates students of different backgrounds into separate experiences on

pathways leading to different outcomes (NCTM, 2018). Students tracked into lower level

mathematics courses rarely have the opportunity to experience higher level learning

opportunities, that in turn, can place them on a path to greater academic success beyond the

classroom. Lower level students often come from disadvantaged backgrounds that further

complicate their learning experiences within a classroom environment. On the other hand,

students from affluent backgrounds are placed into higher level mathematics course that allow

them to “cultivate their mathematics identities, conceptual understanding, and critical

problem-solving and thinking skills (NCTM, 2018), thus providing those higher level students

with access to advanced educational experiences which can and will lead to higher college

acceptance rates and higher paying careers.

Tracking tends to be polarized with research often discussing the demoralization and

inequity of tracking students (Legette & Kurtz-Costes, 2021). Research on detracking illustrates

the negative academic impact that occurs when students of varying levels are lumped together

(Loveless, 2008). In our exploration of tracking and detracking, we chose to focus our research

using the Algebra for All movement as our lens of examination. The Algebra for All movement

was and is the detracking of mathematics in middle school, junior high, and high school classes.

The movement suggests that all 8th or 9th graders take Algebra I (Martin, 2003). The

motivation behind encouraging 8th and 9th graders to take Algebra I was to increase the

number of students taking higher math courses in high school and elevate the number of
college students entering the STEM career field (Eddy et al., 2015). The movement started with

schools requiring not only a certain number of years of math for graduation but also that

graduation requirements had to include algebra (Eddy et al., 2015). Some district and state

legislators began to require all 8th and 9th graders to take Algebra I regardless of their history

with mathematics (Eddy et al., 2015; Martin, 2003).

Since the roll-out of these initiatives inspired by the Algebra for All movement,

researchers have found that simply requiring all students to take Algebra I in 8th or 9th grade

has not led to the success hoped for. Initially, more students were shown to be taking higher

level math classes by the end of high school and more students showed proficiency in Algebra I

on state mathematics standardized tests (Eddy et al., 2015; Liang et al., 2013). However, after

the initial push for students to take Algebra in 8th grade, a large percentage of students that

took Algebra I in 8th grade had to retake it again in 9th grade due to a lack in proficiency (Eddy

et al., 2015). Research found that students who took and scored below proficient in Algebra I

during 8th grade were less likely to achieve proficiency in 9th grade, in comparison to students

who took general math in 8th grade and Algebra I in 9th grade (Liang et al., 2013). Data

analyses also found that students misplaced in Algebra I can be up to 7 grade levels behind

(Loveless, 2008). Students misplaced in Algebra I tend to be a part of low-income households

and are Black or Hispanic (Loveless, 2008; Martin, 2003). As a result, Algebra I classes have

slowly shifted to teaching lower level mathematics to accommodate the students without the

prerequisite skills, such as fraction and integer operations; preventing students ready for

Algebra I from receiving proper instruction (Eddy et al., 2015; Loveless, 2008; Martin, 2003).
 According to the NCTM (2018), “Detracking requires far more than simply rearranging

instructional group patterns.” Removing the barriers caused by the Algebra for All movement

requires a shift in pedagogy, an adjustment in thinking concerning “who is capable of doing and

understanding mathematics”, access to rigorous mathematics curricula supportive of students’

demonstrating intellectual, cognitive, and cultural diversities, and a welcoming classroom

environment where students and teachers feel safe and supported to engage in meaningful

ways” (NCTM, 2018). Algebra for All is not the solution to increase the number of students

taking advanced math courses. Algebra I serves as the gatekeeper to other higher level math

courses. Requiring students to take Algebra regardless of background knowledge and skill is

resulting in more students being unable to achieve proficiency in Algebra the first time they take

it. As Bill Gates ascribes, “Algebra shouldn’t act as a gatekeeper, limiting a student’s dreams. It

should be a gateway, helping students realize them” (Gates, 2021) .

Opportunities and Challenges

We recognize many drawbacks have been found within the tracking system. Students in

a lower or standard track are known to receive less academic support from their teachers

(Legatte & Kurtz-Costes, 2021). Students in a lower track also experience a negative impact on

their motivational beliefs which Legatte and Kurtz-Costes believe could be reduced by “alter[ing]

curricula so that students have greater flexibility in diverging from a “set track’ after sixth-grade

track assignment” (2021, p. 974). With this research in mind, we chose to establish a pathway

that builds in tiered supports that will enable students to learn, grow, and take advantage of a
flexible system that creates different avenues for students to move between “tracks”. Our hope

is to give students the support they need to be successful in, through, and beyond Algebra.

The opportunities provided through our project are giving teachers the chance through

research and collaboration to propose a new system for how students are placed in

mathematics. Our project gave us a chance to look at different schools in a variety of locations

to evaluate their mathematics programs. The project also gave us the opportunity to become

advocates for both teachers and students. We advocate for students by building a course

selection system that best fits their learner needs and profile. Using differentiated instruction,

the curriculum in each course is tied to the student’s learner profiles (Tomlinson, 2018). The

challenge that we faced was trying to find the best model that does not rely on the traditional

way of tracking students. Our main goal is to ensure that students are more able to move up or

down within their math courses to prevent feelings of frustration.

Legatte and Kurtz-Costes (2021), however, provide suggestions on how teachers could

support students throughout their leveled courses. Having conversations with students

regarding placement ensures students that they can go beyond the current level in which they

are placed. In other words, their current “track” is malleable and has the potential to change.

Based on Legatte and Kurtz-Costes suggestions, we combined these two ideas by offering math

classes at different levels and/or different disciplines of mathematics. The combination of ideas

will allow students opportunities to develop the mathematical skills that they are interested in

as well as increase their foundational algebraic skills. The result led us to create a flexible

pathway that allows students' math levels to be monitored and supported, proving success as
the “level up”. A challenge we faced was determining how to incorporate the three elements of

assessment, support, and course selections together.

Impact of Hope

Through our thinking and research, we found that dynamic assessments would be more

suitable. We looked at what supports were needed and how many different elements of

support could be incorporated into each tiered course. Additionally, we perceived that school

administrators might view the proposed pathway as another way of tracking students and

would be hesitant to follow our plan.

We hope that the impact of our project work will encourage school leadership to stop

using the Algebra for All approach as a means of placement and as a source of promotion within

the set time frame. We hope that schools adopt the pathway we propose so students receive

the support they need to be successful all while learning to enjoy mathematics. Our ultimate

hope is to see more students enrolled in advanced math courses, i.e. AP and AICE, before they

graduate high school.

Lessons Learned

The concept of detracking and tracking in mathematics is one that we immediately

recognized as a potential topic of interest, as we began to unpack areas of refinement within

the Algebra for All curriculum’s impact on the education system. Keeping student success and

academic performance at the forefront of our decision making, we identified a need to establish

an alternative form of tracking, concentrating on the Algebra for All movement. During our
research regarding the pros and cons of tracking, we quickly realized that detracking versus

tracking divides the many scholars within Academia. To remove the polarization aspect, we

decided to identify a common ground and reinvent the initial stages of educational tracking for

Algebra placement, rather than omitting tracking entirely. This stage of development presented

us with the most beneficial lessons learned as we sorted through countless academic journals

and publications searching for research to back our topic, while also considering the

counterargument to our developing proposal: Detracking the System of Tracking: A Proposal for

Change in Mathematics Education.

Reflection and learning took place in all stages of development. Once the wheels were

in motion, we worked diligently to establish a series of phases that would redefine the use of

tracking while simultaneously adding in the implementation of interventions and enrichment.

As we began to create a visual aid for our presentation, we hit a roadblock. We were eager to

share all of the information we had found with our prospective audience, a school district’s

educational board. Yet, we had to consider the tight schedule followed in school board

meetings. We quickly realized that we had a mountain of valuable information to share but

would need to limit our findings so as to cover the crucial pieces of our research-based ideas.

The development of our proposal from initial planning through implementation presented us

with many distractions. The most significant lesson learned was to stay focused on our mission:

to create a “tracking” system that would support educators in placing students into a

mathematics course that would be student-centered, instead of educator or assessment

centered. By keeping our mission of student growth and success at the forefront of our
proposal, we were able to develop a pathway that we believe can support school systems in

sustaining students through their higher-level math journey.

Future Actions

Our improvement plan includes a presentation to the school board. Beyond the

presentation, we anticipate positive feedback and support that will catapult our efforts to the

school implementation committee. The school implementation committee will then take the

plan and develop it to fit the students at the school. When implementation plans are

developed, proposals usually have a three year projection. In the first year, information is

gathered from teachers, students, parents, and school leaders. Systems and structures are then

put in place, including the designation, and hiring of staff. By the second year, pilot programs

are established, often within one class per grade level. Continuous data analysis drives the

decision-making as well as the level of interventions and enrichments used within the

classroom. Finally, the third year progresses to schoolwide implementation. Analyzing and

evaluating the data produced from various dynamic and adaptive assessments is key to

continued success of the pilot. If the implementation is effective, sharing strategic steps with

other schools in the district and supporting them with putting into action a similar plan.

Further research must be done in order to ensure that the solutions promote growth, equity,

and opportunity in Math and STEM areas for all students. According to Lynch et al, this means

having “well-prepared STEM teachers and professionalized teaching staffs; and supports for

students in underrepresented groups” (Lynch et al., 2017).

 Data needs to continue to be collected and analyzed to make sure that the plan remains

effective, and the desired results are reached. (2008) With this data, reevaluation will happen

to inform if schools will continue their current path or develop a new action plan. The action

plan will address root causes of concerns seen, set performance targets, and determine

evidence that can be measured and shared to further this practice. Solution to the problem?

Create a viable and practical avenue for students to move towards greater success in and

beyond Algebra I.
 References

Data‐driven decision making and Dynamic Planning: A School Leader’s Guide. (2008). Journal of

Educational Administration, 46(5), 663–665.

https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230810895573

Eddy, C. M., Sarah Quebec Fuentes, Ward, E. C., Parker, Y. A., Cooper, S., Jasper, W. A., Mallam,
W., M. Alejandra Sorto, & Wilkerson, T. L. (2015). Unifying the Algebra for All Movement.
Journal of Advanced Academics, 26(1), 59–92.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202x14562393.

Fiedler, E. D., Lange, R. E., & Winebrenner (2022). In search of reality: Unraveling the
myths about tracking, ability grouping, and the gifted. Roeper Review, 24(3), 108-111.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190209554142.

Gates, B. (2021, December 7). Math Problem: More students flunk this high school course
than any other. The Blog of Bill Gates
https://www.gatesnotes.com/Helping-students-succeed-in-Algebra.

Haywood, C. H., & Lidz, C. S. (2007). Dynamic assessment in practice: Clinical and educational
applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Hill, C. (2010). When traditional won’t do: Experiences from a “lower-level” mathematics
classroom. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues, and Ideas,
83(6), 239-243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2010.484439.

Huey-Min Wu, Bor-Chen Kuo, & Su-Chen Wang. (2017). Computerized dynamic adaptive tests
with immediately individualized feedback for primary school mathematics learning.
Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(1), 61–72.
 http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.20.1.61.

Legette, K. B., & Kurtz-Costes, B. (2021). Math track placement and reflected
classroom appraisals are related to changes in early adolescents’ math
self-concept. Educational Psychology (Dorchester-on-Thames), 41(5), 602–617.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2020.1760212.

Liang, J.-H., Heckman, P. E., & Abedi, J. (2012). What Do the California Standards Test Results
Reveal About the Movement Toward Eighth-Grade Algebra for All? Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(3), 328–343.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373712443307.

Loveless, T. (2008). The misplaced math student: Lost in eighth-grade algebra. Brown Center on
Education Policy at Brookings, 2-14.

Lynch, S. J., Burton, E. P., Behrend, T., House, A., Ford, M., Spillane, N., Matray, S., Han, E., &

Means, B. (2017). Understanding inclusive STEM high schools as opportunity structures

for underrepresented students: Critical components. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 55(5), 712–748. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21437

Martin, D. B. (2003). Hidden assumptions and unaddressed questions in mathematics for all
rhetoric. The Mathematics Educator, 13(2), 7-21.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2018). Initiating critical conversations on the

discontinuation of tracking.
https://www.nctm.org/News-and-Calendar/Messages-from-the-President/Archive/Robe
rt-Q_-Berry-III/Initiating-Critical-Conversations-on-the-Discontinuation-of-Tracking/.

Silver, E. (1995, March 1). Rethinking “algebra for all.” ASCD, 53:6.
 https://https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/rethinking-algebra-for-all.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2018). Differentiated Instruction. In Fundamentals of Gifted Education

(2nd ed., pp. 279–292). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315639987-26.