The impact of Algebra for all

2011-12-06California has struggled with the gap in achievement between the socio-economically disadvantaged (SED) and non-SED subgroups. In 2005, the California School Board implemented a policy titled Algebra for All. Algebra for All is the policy on which hopes are pinned to improve mathematics education and student achievement in California. The intent of the policy was to close the gap within the two subgroups in two areas. The first area was the access to higher level mathematics courses, beginning with Algebra I; the second area was increased student achievement in Algebra I. ❧ In this study the effects of the Algebra for All policy on SED student opportunity to learn and Algebra I achievement in comparison to a non-SED subgroup in the largest 22 unified school districts in California were investigated. STAR results from 2005 and 2010 in both subgroups were compared. The results of this study support the following four conclusions: ❧ 1. The effect of the 2005 Algebra for All mandate on both district participation rates and the opportunity gap was minimal. ❧ 2. Statewide, the trend was towards increased Algebra I success rates in both the SED and the NSED subgroups, thus, there was little change in the success gap. ❧ 3. Statewide, median SED participation in Algebra I or Geometry was .69 and a gap between the SED and non-SED subgroups of 5% or more remained in 13 districts. From this information, it can be inferred that Algebra for All did not have its intended effect on participation rates and the opportunity gap. ❧ 4. Six districts had SED success rates that exceeded 59%. Thirteen districts had NSED success rates that exceeded 59%. While the success rates were higher than those that are generally reported, it is important to remember that success was defined in this study as “Basic or Above” rather than “Proficient and Above.” Even with this more lenient definition of success, in 10 of 22 districts the success rates fell below 50%. Nonetheless, because the success rates for the SED and NSED subgroups were highly correlated within districts, the median gap was only 6%