Untangling Who Should Take Algebra — And When

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

When it comes to access, readiness and placement in Algebra I, states and districts across the country have ping-ponged between extremes for decades, often without clear evidence to back up drastic and frequent policy shifts.

A new report attempts to untangle the policy pendulum swings and provide states and districts with concrete evidence for what’s most effective. But to really understand what’s at stake, consider a history lesson  – more a cautionary tale, really – set in San Francisco schools.

Nationally, only 16% of eighth-grade students took Algebra I in the mid-80s — and as one might imagine, the well-resourced schools that offered the advanced math subject in middle school overwhelmingly catered to wealthy white students. The 90s was marked by efforts to address those inequities and increase access to Algebra I, which was seen as a gateway to academic success and college access but one that often locked out marginalized students. 

Swept up in California’s “Algebra for All” push in the late 1990s, San Francisco schools shifted away from placing high-achieving students on advanced math tracts and attempted to enroll all eighth-graders in Algebra I. But the results were lackluster at best. By significantly increasing enrollment, including students who were not academically prepared for the subject, achievement plummeted. Some research even suggests a harmful backsliding for the lowest-performers, who often had to repeat the course. 

So, San Francisco course-corrected once again. In 2015, they rolled out new and rigorous math standards, but took away the ability for students to take Algebra I in eighth-grade, making it a ninth-grade subject. Then, after a wave of criticism from parents fearing their kids weren’t being challenged or properly prepared for more advanced mathematics, they reintroduced Algebra I to eighth-graders this year, piloting three different ways of offering the subject in middle school to pinpoint the most effective way to do so. 

San Francisco isn’t alone in its Algebra I pendulum swings — not by a long shot. Today, the subject has become a bellwether for equity and college access, and unexpectedly, one of the most hotly debated topics in American education. 

With district and school leaders clamoring for more meaningful guidance about who should take the class, when, and with what types of support, a new report from EdResearch for Action and the Annenberg Institute at Brown University tackles those issues head-on.

“Over the past few decades, the research that has come out of those policy swings — from everyone should take it in eighth grade to no, we should make everyone take it in ninth grade — has kind of shown that that one-size-fits-all uniform push to algebra one is not meeting the needs of all students,” says Elizabeth Huffaker, a fellow at Stanford University’s Center for Education Policy Analysis and author of the report. “A lot of states and districts are experimenting with new models, and we wanted to bring to bear what we do know as states and districts try to do that.”

Here’s what the report found and what state, district and school leaders should examine as they think about the most effective ways to set students up for success with Algebra I and beyond. 

How to Determine Algebra Readiness

In deciding who should take algebra, districts should attempt to strike a balance between expanding early access to the subject in 8th grade and ensuring students are academically ready. The goal should be to broaden participation while preventing course failure, disengagement, and long-term setbacks. 

Research shows that long-term academic success is higher when students are enrolled in Algebra I based on academic readiness rather than grade level. But whether schools should embrace acceleration among students with uncertain readiness depends on the level of academic support a district can provide as well as the proportion of students considered borderline ready. Enrolling too many students who aren’t fully ready can be disruptive and ineffective, whereas a small number who are also bolstered by tutoring programs, for example, would likely be successful.

Students who are not academically ready need significant support to be successful.

When it comes to making placement decisions, research shows the best way to do so is with a combination of test scores, rather than relying solely on subjective referrals or a single test score. This has been shown to improve participation and achievement, especially for historically underserved students. For example, when schools in Wake County, North Carolina, replaced subjective placement factors with a cutoff score based on multiple academic measures, it led to increased enrollment, especially among Black, Hispanic, and low-income students. 

Tracking v. Mixed Classrooms

“Tracking,” the practice of assigning students to courses based on their proficiency level, is controversial since it assumes students have fixed academic abilities. That’s a narrative that’s particularly harmful for low-income students and students of color who come into K-12 with far less access to advanced coursework. 

Yet the practice is widespread, especially in older grades and for placement in advanced classes: Nationally, about 25% of 4th graders and 75% of 8th graders attend schools that use tracking. Supporters argue that it improves learning by targeting instruction to students’ individual needs, and research seems to bear that out, with classrooms grouped by proficiency levels allowing more targeted instruction.

However, research also shows that tracking tends to benefit higher achievers while also widening achievement gaps and increasing segregation. Moreover, students in lower tracks are typically aware of their placement, which can hurt confidence, motivation and effort. 

Meanwhile, mixed-proficiency classrooms offer all students access to rigorous coursework, but risk discouraging lower achievers by introducing material that’s too advanced while also slowing progress for high achievers because the material isn’t advanced enough. And while differentiated instruction can benefit all students, effectively supporting a wide range of academic abilities requires teachers to have advanced skills.

Evidence-Based Strategies to Help Kids Catch Up

The best approach is to provide extra support to students who aren’t quite ready for algebra through tutoring, offering two periods of math each day (also known as “double-dose”) or providing summer programs, research shows. 

Tutoring, especially when delivered in small groups, multiple times per week, and during the school day, is one of the most effective short-term and long-term academic interventions. A meta-analysis of 21 randomly controlled trials found that math tutoring generates about a 10 percentile learning gain, on average, which is a large effect for an educational intervention. 

“Double-dose” algebra gives students two math periods a day and has been shown to improve outcomes. When Chicago Public Schools required underprepared 9th-grade students to take two periods of algebra instead of one, student test scores increased. It also led to longer-run gains in college entrance exam scores, high school graduation rates, and college enrollment rates.

Research also shows that summer bridge programs help students build the study skills and confidence needed for success in algebra. One 19-day Algebra I bridge program in California raised the share of algebra-ready students from 12% to 29%.

Where to Go From Here

Increasing enrollment in Algebra I in middle school involves nuanced decision-making that includes evaluating the readiness of students and educators and the capacity of the district to provide support.

What districts should avoid, the research shows, are policy shifts that either delay Algebra I for all students or accelerate them without strong, integrated support, and enrollment policies that rely on one static test score or subjective teacher recommendations.

“There should be an emphasis on raising the floor, not lowering the ceiling when we’re thinking about balancing access and achievement,” Huffaker says. 

Most recently, districts have been turning to auto-enrollment policies, which allow students to opt out and support those who may not be academically ready with either tutoring or a second math class. Research shows that it increases participation and completion rates, particularly among underrepresented students. 

Bottom line, Huffaker says, is that there are always going to be trade-offs when it comes to how and when to introduce Algebra I. 

“We always say that supported acceleration is a great way to get all or most of your students on an advanced pathway. And it sounds really great to have everyone kind of on that early Algebra I one trajectory. But districts face significant resource constraints and staffing. So I think our real goal here was to provide a framework where districts could come in with their local priorities and resources mapped and see what’s realistic for them.”

Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter