by Sugi Sorensen
On Friday, Feb. 21, 2025 La Cañada Math Parents (LCMP) leaders met with La Cañada Unified School District (LCUSD) administrators at the behest of LCUSD Governing Board member Joe Radabaugh, with whom I had corresponded after writing the LCMP article “LCHS Math Pathway Update Brings Hope and Confusion” last month, to talk about concerns expressed in the article. Representing LCUSD was Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum & Instruction Jim Cartnal, LCHS 7/8 Principal Jarrett Gold, and LCHS Principal David Paskiewicz. Representing LCMP were parent Sunyoung Fahimi and myself as LCMP President.
In summary the meeting was cordial and productive. Cartnal led off the meeting explaining the genesis for the meeting, namely his presentation on the “LCHS 7-12 Math Pathways Update” to the LCUSD Governing Board at their regularly scheduled meeting on Jan. 21, 2025, my subsequent LCMP article, and Radabaugh’s request that Cartnal meet with LCMP to address the issues I raised. This article summarizes the salient outcomes of the Feb. 21, 2025 meeting.
College Prep Pathway Course Name Change Timetable
The first question I asked related to the confusion stemming from the discrepant information presented at the Jan. 21, 2025 board meeting and the LCHS Course Catalog. The confusion was about which lower College Prep pathway math courses would adopt plain-language descriptive names next school year — 2025-26. So far, course names have been changed one year at a time. At the Jan. 21, 2025 board meeting Cartnal implied just LC Math 2 would revert to its descriptive name — Geometry — next school year, but the slide he presented showed all remaining courses in the lower pathway changing names next year:
As pointed out in my LCMP article, the LCHS Course Catalog gives contradictory information supporting both possibilities. Cartnal clarified that all courses in the lower College Prep pathway will be reverting to their descriptive names in the 2025-26 school year, not just LC Math 2. Further, Cartnal said the contradictions in the LCHS Course Catalog had been fixed, and the corrected version of the catalog would be published to the LCHS website in the next few days.
In contrast, courses in the Advanced College Prep pathway will continue to be changed one year at a time on a rolling basis as old courses are phased out, and their new pathway replacements are phased in. This school year (i.e. 2024-25) is the last year LC Math 1 Adv and LC Math 2 Adv will be offered, and next year (2025-26) LC Math 1 Adv will be replaced by Algebra I and LC Math 2 Advanced will be replaced by Honors Geometry.
On a related note, the new Honors Geometry course offered in 2025-26 will be presented to the LCUSD Governing Board for consideration and approval in a few months. LCMP asked for, and Cartnal agreed, to provide LCMP an advance copy of the new Honors Geometry course outline when it is completed.
Removal of LCHS Math Department Policy Punishing Students Taking Advanced Math Courses During Summer
The second highest priority on LCMP’s question list was when LCHS will rescind the punitive policy stating that, “Students taking math during the summer may not enroll in the advanced level of the next in sequence class.” The policy appears on the LCHS Math Department web page1 and LCUSD administrators had promised LCMP as far back as 2022 that the policy would be rescinded, though no timetable was given at the time.
Cartnal responded that there was still a sound reason for keeping the policy in place and though they were receptive to parents’ concerns about the seeming arbitrariness of the policy, they planned to rescind it in due time. He explained that if a student in the Advanced College Prep pathway took a math class for credit and for acceleration in the summer, it would not make sense if there was not an appropriate in-sequence class to take the fall following the summer course. He raised the example of a student in the Advanced pathway wanting to take a Geometry course for credit during the upcoming 2025 summer. He said that would not be appropriate because the Honors Algebra II course hasn’t been created nor approved yet. I responded that in this scenario the request should be permitted and the student should be allowed to take LC Math 3 Advanced the next fall. Cartnal disagreed.
Cartnal said the LCHS math department is attempting to craft a modification to the current department policy that will allow students in the Advanced College Prep pathway to take a summer course for credit and remain in the Advanced pathway if the next in-sequence course is available the next fall. Thus if the amended policy is passed, a student could take Algebra I this summer and take Honors Geometry next school year in 2025-26, but could not take Geometry this summer because the Honors Algebra II class hasn’t been created yet.
Though rescinding the policy altogether would be preferred by LCMP, in the absence of doing so amending the policy as Cartnal described to allow more flexibility for students and families to take math courses over the summer seems a step in the right direction.
Cartnal did confirm that once the LCHS 7-12 math pathway transition is fully completed in the 2027-28 school year, the policy will be fully rescinded.
Summer Bridge Courses
I asked what the district is going to do now that the La Cañada Flintridge Educational Foundation (LCFEF) Summer School has closed down. Readers should note that the LCFEF used to offer lower pathway math courses, as well as summer bridge courses for LCHS students wishing to bridge up from the lower College Prep math pathway to the Advanced College Prep pathway. The Advanced Math Topics 1 and Advanced Math Topics 2 courses formerly offered by LCFEF as seen in the diagram below in green are no longer available to LCUSD families:
Cartnal responded that the district is aware of the issue and is looking at options that it can recommend. Students can take lower pathway math courses if they follow the proper procedures (i.e. they take it in person or online from a WASC-accredited school and secure prior approval from their counselor per district Board Policy 6146.1.)
LCHS 7/8 Principal Gold pointed out that he is working with LCHS 7/8 small school 1 math teacher Christine Dornian on creating a summer Math 8 course that rising 8th graders in the lower College Prep pathway can take to enable them to enroll in Algebra 1 (8th) in 8th grade. Though the effort has not been completed yet and would require Governing Board approval, LCMP welcomed the news and expressed full support for the initiative.
Honors Algebra I?
As mentioned in LCMP’s article about Cartnal’s math pathway presentation to the Board on Jan. 21, 2025, LCMP has felt that a gap in the district’s LCHS 7-12 math pathway transition is that all high school math courses will have honors versions except Algebra I. I asked why the district isn’t offering an Honors Algebra I course. Both Gold and Cartnal felt that there was no need for a separate Honors Algebra I course.
I responded that my analysis of course outlines and pacing guides indicated the current Algebra I (8th) course is identical to the lower College Prep pathway Algebra I/LC Math 1 course and is not an honors level course. Further I said that I felt that the Algebra I (8th) course is not challenging enough for most students in the Advanced College Prep pathway and that 50% of the material is a repeat of material already learned in the Math 7 Advanced course. Principal Gold responded that he felt that the Algebra I (8th) course is fine as is based on feedback from teachers teaching it this year (i.e. Erin Wong and Samantha Wright), and both he and Cartnal felt that the current Algebra I (8th) class is an honors level course. I disagreed, but made no further progress advancing my case for creating an Honors Algebra I course.
Improving Communication with Elementary Parents
While discussing other topics, a mutual understanding was secured on improving transparency and communication from the district to parents about the 7-12 math pathways and the true extent of the material covered on the middle school math placement exam. We pointed out that year after year a deceptive claim is made to 6th grade parents in late February or early March when they are told by Principal Gold that, “no preparation should be needed (for the placement exam) for a child who has been performing above grade level and is ready for an above grade level placement.” LCMP has felt for at least the past eight years that this statement is misleading at best, and disingenuous at worse and is the main reason that over 80% of students taking the middle school math placement exam fail it every year. Last year, the fail rate was 88% over the May and August exams. We pointed out that Board member Radabaugh told the story of his own daughter taking the exam at the Jan. 21, 2025 Board meeting:
“I think I’ve told the story. I had my daughter try to take that test and she came back furious at us because she’s like, ‘Dad, I’ve never even seen this content!’ And so that was just…I just thought that magic, through some osmosis, she might somehow have picked it up and spring board! But the reality was she hadn’t seen the content.”
Cartnal agreed with our point that the lack of clear communication about what is covered on the middle school math placement exam leaves room for improvement.
Cartnal agreed to work with LCMP to improve district communication to LCUSD elementary parents about the true nature of the middle school math placement exam and the middle school and high school math pathways and courses.
Middle School Math Placement Exam: Skipping Algebra I
LCMP asked several questions about the middle school math placement exam.
Firstly I asked if students who successfully passed the combined 7th + 8th grade standards middle school math placement exam in May or August could thereafter take an Algebra I exam to try to pass out of Algebra I (8th) and take Honors Geometry in 7th grade upon arrival at the middle school. At first in keeping with his public comments made over the past two years, LCHS 7/8 Principal expressed resistance to the suggestion. An extended back and forth thereupon followed with LCMP making the case that California law (CA Education Code §51224.7 also known as the 2015 California Math Placement Act), incorporated in LCUSD under BP/AR 6152.1 compelled district staff to place district students at whatever level of math they were prepared to take.
Gold, as he has in the past justifying his resistance, responded that he was reluctant to accelerate students too quickly because it causes downstream problems in high school math courses. When asked to elaborate, he said the young students, by which he meant accelerated students placed in math courses above grade level, slowed down the pace of instruction in more advanced high school math courses because they had not learned math properly through whatever outside courses they had taken to enable them to pass the placement exam. Both Sunyoung and I explained that we had heard just the opposite from our dozens of parents who we had spoken to over the years. As background, Sunyoung and I teach accelerated math courses for the private company Math Pod and as a matter of practice we check in with our families in later years to see how our students are doing in later high school math courses. Our parents consistently tell us their students do just fine in advanced math courses and they are not the students slowing down the pace of instruction in high school math courses.
We asked Gold if he had compared the academic performance of accelerated and non-accelerated students in high school math courses and he responded that he had, and he did not have evidence via grades of discrepant performance, but he fully believed it was the case that accelerated students who slowed down later math courses. I asked him to substantiate his claim with data and offered we would gladly modify our position if given proof. Gold responded that his position was not supportable with data, but he firmly backed his teachers’ perception that it was young accelerated students who asked the vast majority of questions that slowed down the pace of instruction in later math courses.
LCMP responded that we were aware that a significant number of students were being allowed to skip a year of math even though they had not met the cut score on the middle school math placement exam (thus demonstrating their mastery of the material in the course they were skipping.) For more context, we are aware that up to a third of students who are currently in 7th grade taking Algebra I (8th) did not meet or exceed the 80% cut score on the middle school math placement exam, and that most of those had been invited by 7/8 counselors to enroll in Algebra I (8th) even though they didn’t meet the cut score and missed the 80% mark by a not insignificant amount. Gold strongly denied our claim that his counselors had made any such offers and said he never gave his counselors permission to make such offers. Gold agreed to look into the matter more closely.
My final point on this issue that seemed to gain at least some traction in Gold’s mind was I asked as a principal how he would place a student transferring into the middle school from a foreign country like China or South Korea where the student had completed mathematics through Algebra I, Geometry or higher. He answered he would be obliged to place them commensurate with whatever math they had completed at their previous school and demonstrated mastery over via placement exam(s) here. I then asked if it was fair that students transferring into LCHS 7/8 from another state or country could place into higher math courses, but LCUSD students could not due to his policy not allowing students coming from LCUSD elementary schools to place above Algebra I. Gold did not have a response to this point and said he would have to think about it more.
Middle School Math Placement Exam: Skipping Just Math 7
The second question I asked related to the middle school placement exam was consideration of my idea expressed in the “A Better Way…” section of my earlier article. For the reader’s benefit, my idea was to broaden the middle school math placement test to allow rising 7th graders (i.e. existing 6th graders) to pass just the 7th grade standards portion of the exam thus allowing students to skip just Math 7 in the lower College Prep pathway, instead of requiring them to pass out of two years of standards in just the Advanced pathway as is currently required. A robust discussion ensued and while Gold and Cartnal did not agree to the proposal outright, they agreed to consider it further.
Gold was initially hesitant because he did not see the point of it. He said students failing the middle school math placement exam would take Math 7 Advanced in 7th grade and wind up in Algebra I (8th) in 8th grade anyway so there would be no benefit accrued from skipping just the 7th grade math standards. We responded that our proposal to widen the exam was not meant for students who had a reasonable chance of passing out of Math 7 Advanced, rather it was for students not as advanced in math who might benefit from learning the 7th and 8th grade standards over two years instead of compressed in a single difficult Math 7 Advanced course. Ultimately they would both wind up in Algebra 1 (8th) in 8th grade. Sunyoung pointed out this would help them achieve the equity goals they claim partly justifies their pathway changes in the first place.
Gold also expressed skepticism about the idea because he felt offering yet another option to parents would be too confusing. Cartnal seemed more open to the idea, but said ultimately he would have to consult with other staff and think about it further.
With no resolution secured at the meeting, LCMP remains hopeful district administration will continue to seriously consider the idea as we feel it gives more options for more students to be able to access Algebra I by 8th grade, and therefore open up more advanced opportunities in math later in high school.
1 – LCMP anticipates that LCHS will update their LCHS Math Department page soon, so we present a screenshot of the page as of the date of publication of this story (i.e. 02/23/25) to prove that the policy existed as claimed here. The highlighted sentence has been on the LCHS Math Department page for at least the past eight years:
