Latest news with #AnnenbergInstituteatBrownUniversity
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Science
- Yahoo
Untangling Who Should Take Algebra — And When
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. Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter 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. 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. Related 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,' 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. 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%. 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. Related 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.'
Yahoo
18-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion: Can American Schools Fuel Trump's Proposed Manufacturing Revival?
A version of this essay appeared on Robert Pondiscio's Substack. President Donald Trump's vision to revive American manufacturing — a linchpin of his economic and national security strategy — rests on a bold promise: a renaissance of high-tech factories staffed by skilled tradespeople. The White House, defending steep tariffs to incentivize domestic production, argues that decades of trade deficits have 'hollowed out' America's manufacturing base, resulting in 'a lack of incentive to increase advanced domestic manufacturing capacity.' This, in turn, has 'undermined critical supply chains; and rendered our defense-industrial base dependent on foreign adversaries.' Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick painted a bracing picture of this industrial renaissance. 'There's going to be mechanics, there's going to be HVAC specialists, there's going to be electricians — the tradecraft of America,' he exclaimed on CBS's Face the Nation earlier this month. 'Our high school-educated Americans, the core to our workforce, is [sic] going to have the greatest resurgence of jobs in the history of America, to work on these high-tech factories, which are all coming to America.' It's a stirring vision, but it hinges on a question that's been largely ignored amid the political and economic debates over tariffs: Does America's education system have what it takes to produce the workforce needed to staff a manufacturing revival? To put the question bluntly, is it any better at career and technical education than teaching kids to read and do math proficiently? The evidence suggests a mixed picture: CTE is a comparative bright spot in America's challenged education system, but serious hurdles, from misaligned training to automation's rising demands, raise doubts about whether schools are equipped to meet the moment. Fewer than 40% of the country holds a college degree, so Lutnick is correct to say high school-educated Americans are the 'core' of the workforce. But manufacturing is no longer reliably safe terrain for an unskilled worker with minimal education. Even before Trump took office, a 2024 report forecast a need for up to 3.8 million additional skilled manufacturing employees by 2033 — while predicting that half of those could go unfilled if skills and applicant gaps go unaddressed. Let's start with the good news. CTE delivers tangible outcomes where core academics often stumble. While only 26% of eighth-graders scored proficient in math on the 2022 NAEP, the Nation's Report Card, CTE programs demonstrably funnel kids into the workforce. High schoolers who take multiple CTE courses tend to outperform peers who don't in earnings and employment rates. Even more encouraging, a 2022 report published by the Annenberg Institute at Brown University found these CTE 'concentrators' are 8.4 percentage points more likely to avoid poverty and are significantly more likely to earn above the poverty threshold seven years after high school. They are also less likely to be disengaged — neither employed nor participating in education or training. Related These are positive outcomes, and unsurprising. With 85% of 2019 high school graduates earning at least one CTE credit and 77% of CTE students graduating on time — often despite being at-risk — CTE's focus on jobs over test scores suggests that K-12 can do something right when the goal is paychecks, not just test scores. At its best, CTE aligns education with the practical demands of the labor market, offering pathways to careers that don't require a four-year degree but still promise stability and dignity. But those successes are not universal, and the broader K-12 system's weaknesses cast a long shadow over Trump's manufacturing ambitions. A 2019 report by my former colleagues at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute found that CTE programs often fail to align with the needs of local job markets. Nothing useful comes from schools churning out workers trained as welders in regions where robotics or advanced manufacturing jobs dominate — or might in the future. More concerning, only about 5% of CTE concentrators focus on manufacturing, lagging behind other fields such as health science, agriculture, business management, and hospitality and tourism. tourism. A report co-authored by Boston College's Shaun Dougherty found that schools have an even tougher time filling CTE teaching positions than openings in academic subjects, and that CTE teachers in high-growth areas with occupational licenses are much more likely to leave the profession and enter industry, where they can earn more. The broader K-12 system's academic struggles don't inspire confidence, either. That 26% math proficiency rate among eighth-graders isn't just a statistic; it's a flashing red warning light. The elephant in the room is automation, which shifts manufacturing job demands toward advanced skills like robotics and computer numerical control programming, which involves writing instructions, or code, that tells a machine how to operate and perform tasks like cutting, drilling or milling. In sum, manufacturing is no longer about low-skill, repetitive tasks, but about sophisticated, tech-driven processes. If three-quarters of students can't master middle school math, the demands of modern manufacturing are likely beyond them. The poor performance of K-12 education doesn't augur well for a renaissance in even semi-skilled labor. Specialized CTE high schools and postsecondary schools perform well, but most such students are still in traditional settings, notes Dougherty. 'I don't think that we have evidence that in … comprehensive high schools where we're offering CTE, that we are systematically doing better in teaching CTE than we are in math and reading,' he tells me. Finally, and perhaps ominously, there are factors schools can't fully control. Soft skills like initiative and work ethic are critical in manufacturing, yet they're notoriously hard to teach. Tim Taylor of America Succeeds, a nonprofit aimed at mobilizing business to support education, shared an anecdote about an Austin, Texas, manufacturer who handed out 75 business cards at a career fair, inviting students to come for a job interview. Only three showed up. Taylor's organization emphasizes mid-skill, mid-wage jobs as the goal — not low-skill, low-wage work that's easily automated or offshored. But fostering the initiative to seize those opportunities requires more than curriculum; it demands a cultural shift. Related So, can American education rise to the challenge of Trump's manufacturing revival? The answer is a qualified maybe. CTE is a proven pathway for getting kids into the workforce, and its focus on practical skills makes it better suited than traditional academics to meet industry's immediate needs. Getting serious about this revival will take more than tariffs and rhetoric. It means ensuring CTE programs are tightly aligned with local economies and forward-looking enough to prepare students for an automated future. It means fixing the academic foundations — math, literacy, problem-solving — that underpin technical skills. And it means cultivating a culture that values hard work and opportunity, not just credentials.
Forbes
28-03-2025
- General
- Forbes
How Data And Technology Can Transform Learning—When Used Effectively
Three businessman working and discussing business together in a meeting Data has the power to revolutionize education—but only if it's used to inform, not intimidate. Too often, schools and districts wield data as a punitive cudgel rather than a tool for improvement. The difference in approach can determine whether struggling students graduate or drop out, whether teachers feel supported or scapegoated, and whether schools foster equity or deepen disparities. When applied thoughtfully, data can pinpoint learning gaps, personalize instruction, and create opportunities for students who might otherwise slip through the cracks. During my tenure as Director of Guidance at Montclair High School, we introduced a de-tracked 9th-grade English course called World Literature. The school offered free summer school for students who failed, recognizing that many would have been funneled into lower-track classes under a traditional system. But I noticed a troubling trend: students who failed but didn't attend summer school had alarmingly high dropout rates. Acting on this insight, I worked with the English department chair—an exceptional educator typically assigned to AP classes due to parent demand—to teach a class composed entirely of students who had failed World Literature and did not attend the free summer school. The results were striking. Engagement levels matched those of honors courses, and students produced thoughtful, well-crafted writing. Many shared, 'This is the first time someone cared about what we had to say.' Out of 14 students, 12 graduated—far exceeding the historical graduation rate of under 50% for similar cohorts. This case underscores how data, when used to inform decisions rather than justify policies, can drive real change. Unfortunately, many education systems use data punitively. Standardized test scores, for example, often label schools as 'failing' without accounting for socioeconomic factors. Research from the Annenberg Institute at Brown University (2022) found that status-based accountability systems—those judging schools solely on raw test scores—disproportionately penalize schools serving low-income students. A Stanford University study (2019) revealed that schools with high growth metrics (even with lower absolute scores) were more effective at advancing learning than schools with high but stagnant scores. Yet many districts still prioritize simplistic, politically expedient metrics over nuanced analysis. With over 45 years in education—spanning elite private schools, vocational programs, and blue-collar public schools—I've observed a critical problem: most educators and administrators lack basic data literacy. Many treat data as infallible, ignoring context, sampling biases, and statistical significance. The consequences are real. My wife, a special education teacher, once led a lesson where her students—children with severe intellectual disabilities—analyzed historical defense spending and deduced that budgets rose before major wars. It was critical thinking at its finest. Yet during an observation, she was reprimanded for not rigidly following the district's compliance-focused rubric. This rigidity is pervasive. As education data expert Gregory Nadeau notes: 'The K-12 system is aligned to adult interests—parents and teachers—rather than students. Chronic absenteeism predicts dropouts, yet schools reset attendance records yearly. High-dosage tutoring works, yet it's often the first program cut in budget crises.' To fix these issues, we must: The stakes are too high for business as usual. When data acts as a guiding light, it unlocks potential. When it's a weapon, it shuts doors. The choice is ours.
