In 2014 the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) introduced a new plan for K-12 math which came to be known as de-tracking. The idea was that instead of letting some students surge ahead by taking Algebra I in 8th grade while other students wouldn’t take it until 9th grade, all students would now wait until 9th grade to take Algebra I. This was supposed to be more equitable and to reduce the performance gaps between various racial groups on math tests. The Washington Post explained the thinking and why some were proclaiming the move a success in a 2021 story.

In 2014, the district overhauled its curriculum to group all students with a mix of abilities through 10th grade. Almost everyone is taught Algebra 1 in ninth grade and geometry in 10th. Students who want to take AP Calculus their senior year may accelerate, for instance by combining Algebra 2 and precalculus in 11th grade.

The district was looking to unravel the pervasive classroom racial segregation that came with tracking and rethinking the best way to teach, said Lizzy Hull Barnes, mathematics and computer science supervisor for the district. The result, she said, is that “more students enrolled in advanced math courses, and it’s a more diverse group of students.”

The district also points to a drop in students repeating Algebra 1, an increase in students meeting math requirements over three years and a pre-pandemic drop in D and F grades. Still, while the percentage of Black and Latino students taking Advanced Placement math has increased, the numbers remain small.

But last year an education policy analyst, who formerly worked at the Brookings Institution, looked and found that the claims of de-tracking’s success didn’t really hold up:

As mentioned previously, repeat rates for Algebra I dropped sharply after the elimination of Algebra I in eighth grade, but whether the reform had anything to do with that is questionable. The falling repeat rate occurred after the district changed the rules for passing the course, eliminating a requirement that students pass a state-designed end of course exam in Algebra I before gaining placement in Geometry. In a presentation prepared by the district, speaker notes to the relevant slide admit, “The drop from 40% of students repeating Algebra 1 to 8% of students repeating Algebra 1, we saw as a one-time major drop due to both the change in course sequence and the change in placement policy.”

The claim that more students were taking “advanced math” classes (defined here as beyond Algebra II) also deserves scrutiny. Enrollment in calculus courses declined post-reform. The claim rests on a “compression” course the district offers, combining Algebra II and Pre-Calculus into a single-year course. The Families for San Francisco analysis shows that once the enrollment figures for the compression course are excluded, the enrollment gains evaporate. Why should they be excluded? The University of California rejected the district’s classification of the compression course as “advanced math,” primarily because the course topics fall short of content specifications for Pre-Calculus.

More to the point, the same analyst compared students in 11th grade before and after de-tracking and found a) no evidence that scores improved and b) no evidence this was a boon to minority students.

As displayed in Table 1, SFUSD’s scores for 11th grade mathematics remained flat from 2015 (scale score of 2611) to 2019 (scale score of 2610), moving only a single point. Table 1 shows the breakdown by racial and ethnic groups. Black students made a small gain (+2), Hispanic scores declined (-14), white students gained (+17), and Asian students registered the largest gains (+22).

But the numbers don’t tell the whole story. Because the story of de-tracking isn’t just that it fails to help the students it was supposed to help. The story is also that it hold back the students who have the ability to excel.

Earlier this month the San Francisco Examiner published a piece about one of those students. She’s a black high school student currently in 10th grade. One of the two authors of the piece, Rex Ridgeway, is her grandfather.

In 2014, SFUSD denied access to algebra 1 for all eighth graders, regardless of their preparation and motivation, justifying this with the word “equity.” SFUSD subsequently claimed success, but inquiring community members were denied access to supporting data. Obtaining data through public records requests, the district’s success claims were exposed to be grossly misrepresented.…

In practice, SFUSD’s delay of algebra 1 has created a nightmare of workarounds...

I was compelled to place my granddaughter into an algebra I course in the summer before her ninth-grade year at Abraham Lincoln High School. This cost $860 and resulted in her being prepared to take both algebra I and geometry in ninth grade — courses that are designed to be sequential, so problematic to take simultaneously. She earned straight As in both courses and is currently taking algebra 2 this year (10 grade).

…last month my granddaughter started her UC Berkeley pre-calculus college accredited course online, which she will complete over the summer at the cost of $1,005. This will enable her to take calculus next year.

As the piece points out, not every student can afford to work around these hurdles created by the de-tracking plan. As a result, some advanced students won’t get to calculus in high school which means they’ll be taking it as freshmen in college. But that means they have no chance to get ahead. Other students who already took are either in a better position to do well in college (since they’re retaking it) or can test out of it and thereby have access to upper level courses a bit sooner. The advanced students could graduate early or might have an edge applying for internships or research opportunities.

Here I can speak from some experience. My daughter started college having tested out of enough General Education classes that she was only a few credits shy of being a sophomore. As a result, she had an edge applying to a research opportunity one of her professors mentioned in class. She became the only freshman to become part of the research team (most of the other students involved were in grad school). All that to say, there really are advantages and opportunities to being on a faster track.

The piece closes by observing that, thanks to his granddaughter’s extra work and the extra expense the school district will count her as a sign of their program’s success:

SFUSD will take credit for my granddaughter’s mathematical success as proof their policies work. In reality, this took two of her summers and nearly $2,000 to overcome SFUSD’s obstacles. Her accomplishments are not because of the district, but in spite of the district.

Finally, it’s not just San Francisco that could be stuck with this system which prioritizes the idea of equity over actual success because California is still considering adopting statewide standards for math (also focused on equity) which would replicate de-tracking. Setting up more hurdles for advanced students will hurt them and won’t help the other students who are still lagging behind. That ought to be enough to have the adults in the room reverse course, but of course no one wants to admit that their equity scheme was a failure.