by Stuart Singer, The Teacher Leader

In his recent post, “The Algebra Miracle”, Mel Riddile wrote of the daunting complexity of implementing a radical approach to solving high failure rates in high school Algebra 1.  Riddile noted many factors that are necessary for such change but emphasized that there must be a high degree of support at every level of the school staff.

“The Teacher Leader was willing to pay the price to set up both students and teachers for success…A successful school wide initiatives like the Algebra Project requires that multiple leaders work in partnership. Without a strong, respected and trusted teacher leader the math teachers would never have bought in. The principal had to lend full and active support with parents, counselors, other departments in the school, and the school district all of which had different reasons for questioning the approach. The head counselor had to convince the counselors that the much more complicated scheduling and re-scheduling process would be worth the time and effort. Any weakness among any of the three leaders would have ensured that the effort failed.”

In previous postings I have addressed in broad terms the steps that were essential to acquire this wide spread cooperation.  But as Riddile relates, these negotiations required a significant degree of persistence, personal contact and honest dialogue.  Below is a significantly more detailed history of what was required to make the “Algebra Project” a reality.  

Starting At the Beginning

The original idea of eliminating a separate Algebra 1 Part 1 program began long before the implementation of state end-of-course barrier exams.  At a district math department chair meeting the Math Instructional Coordinator noted that there was a high failure rate in Algebra 1 by students who had taken Part 1 the previous year.  Even individuals receiving high marks in Part 1 were struggling to pass at the succeeding level.  He shared his belief that this situation was the direct result of the “watered down” nature of the Part 1 course.  These sentiments reinforced every observation I had made about the situation.  At the twenty-year mark of my teaching career there was little doubt that the student outcomes in high school Algebra 1 were dismal.  Algebra 1 Part 1 students were labeling themselves as mathematical incompetents.  For many of these individuals such branding became a self-fulfilling prophecy.  In addition, their isolation from students who could serve as role models for classroom success lessened their ability to change the trajectory of their math future.   Of even greater concern was the fact that placing a student in Part 1 could be a seminal event for the remainder of their math education.  Relocating a misplaced Part 1 student to Algebra 1 needed to take place within the first three weeks of school.  If this identification is not made quickly such transfers were usually unsuccessful.  Consequently, placement in Part 1 regardless of a person’s potential put their futures in jeopardy.  These students would not only be one additional year behind their peers, they were going to receive an inferior math foundation upon which to build.   This placement was far too important to be determined solely by one’s performance in seventh and eighth grade math.

Building a New Model  

I solicited the assistance of the Coordinator to try to find a way to change the system.  Another department chair from a neighboring school joined us in the quest.   Many meetings were to follow.   We created a blueprint for our new program and then consulted teachers, assistant principals, principals and district leaders for their input.  A plan was finalized.  At the beginning of the year students designated for either Algebra 1 or Part 1 were all placed into Algebra 1.  Six weeks into the second half of the school year, everyone who was failing the course was reclassified as Part 1 students with a modified grading scale that reflected a commensurate grade for their work in terms of this less demanding course.  (For example, an average of 48—normally well below passing—would translate into a “B” for the Part 1 credit).  This procedure was explained to the students and parents before the year began.  The teacher nightmare referred to by Riddile—a disconsolate student sitting in a room during the spring with no hope of receiving a passing grade—had virtually disappeared.  Under this system in March nearly every student in these classes had a passing grade either in Algebra 1 or Part 1.  Plus all students had been exposed to a genuine Algebra 1 course.  One other change that was unique to our school was the creation of Algebra 1 Part 2 classes for the students who received Part 1 credit.  As opposed to placing these individuals into a regular Algebra 1, this separate course allowed teachers to emphasize the second half of the Algebra 1 curriculum.  

Better But Not Best

During the next three years, while the academic results at my school were quite good, the teachers found it increasingly difficult to conduct what were basically two different classes in the same room.  At the other school the chair had transferred and the program was soon phased out.  We chose a much different approach.  If the problem was the very disparate academic levels, why not actually move the students into different classes?  

Getting Everyone On Board

The discussion of this significant modification began with the math teachers.  At a department meeting the possibility of creating separate Part 1 and Algebra 1 classes at mid-year was introduced.  For the teachers the disadvantages were numerous.  Such changes could very easily result in additional preparations for many.  The curriculum coverage and pacing in every Algebra 1 class would have to become identical.  In addition, there could be issues concerning who should teach which level of classes.  Finally, splitting the students would basically create all new classes in both Algebra 1 and Part 1 that would require teachers to reestablish classroom management rules and philosophies.  For the students the positives were simple.  The ones who remained in Algebra 1 would see a rapid acceleration in the presentation of the curriculum.  For the Part 1 participants, they would have an opportunity to learn the material in the first half of Algebra 1 for a second time.  Analysis over several years of student performance had determined that the area of greatest difficulty was the second quarter material.  Consequently in this “do-over”, that portion of the curriculum would receive a greater amount of class time.  

After a lengthy discussion a vote was taken.  It was unanimously in favor.  This result was not surprising.  The math department was a special group of people.  Two of the teachers were former Peace Corps workers and the majority of the others were of a similar mindset.  For a school to succeed with the highest free and reduced lunch rate and the most ELL students in the district would require nothing less.  

Next up was the director of guidance.  A former member of the Peace Corps herself, her team would be confronted with major problems created by this plan.  There would be massive schedule changes, numerous consultations with parents, and many revisions to student transcripts.  For non-math people the delineation between the various levels of Algebra 1 could become quite confusing.   But without hesitation her response was affirmative.  If this is what is best for the students, she told me, then we will find a way to make it work.  Her level of commitment never wavered over the next few years despite the dramatically increased workload for the guidance staff.  Her actions were crucial to the ongoing success of the program.

The administrative team was equally supportive.  The state testing had begun and for many of our students these barrier exams were proving to be very challenging.   Whatever sacrifices the adults needed to make were going to be made.

After the first year I convened the math department once again to discuss the program.  The initial expectations of the plan, both good and bad, were close to what had been anticipated.  Scores on the state exams were improved (the pass rate rose from 32% to 39%), but the perceived negatives for the teachers did occur—more class preps, restarting classes, etc.  We openly discussed the pros and cons.  In order to avoid any sense of pressure, after the meeting I conducted a secret ballot vote on whether to continue.   The vote to retain the plan was unanimous.  With experience the program became more and more efficient.  In the master schedule Algebra 1 classes were bunched into periods to allow student changes to occur without disrupting other classes.  The decision on placement was moved two weeks earlier so as not to interfere with semester grading.  And most importantly, the students’ scores soared.

The bottom line is clear—implementing dramatic change takes time, communication and commitment.  The Algebra Project illustrated the need for all of those ingredients.