District Aims to Arbitrarily Limit Math Advancement in Revisions to AR 6152.1

---

Date: May 30, 2024
To: James Cartnal
CC: Jarrett Gold, Wendy Sinnette, Sunyoung Fahimi

Dear Jim,

Thank you for notifying us in advance, for inviting us to prior meetings, and for always engaging in good-faith dialogue.

Second, since we are recommending something about which you disagree, I wanted to share this openly and transparently, so you did not have to hunt for it in a soon to be released Board agenda. 

As you all know, the part with which we disagree is the area of change numbered 2 in your email. In particular, this line in the proposed amended AR 6152.1:

No mathematics placement assessment will be given for Algebra I (8), nor may students take this class for acceleration during the summer.

Put succinctly, this sentence contradicts or violates other of your own ARs and BPs, as well as California Education Code (CEC), and as such needs to be removed. There is recent case precedent on the matter in Palo Alto USD, and it portends a sub-optimal outcome for LCUSD if a family files a complaint under the Uniform Complaint Procedure (UCP) or sues. 

Here are the CECs that I believe are violated:

1. EDC § 51228.2 – Title 2. Elementary and Secondary Education – Courses of Study, Grades 7 to 12 [51220 – 51230]

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=51228.2&lawCode=EDC
https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/education-code/edc-sect-51228-2.html

The key provision that is violated is:

(b) Under no circumstances shall a school district assign a pupil enrolled in any of grades 9 to 12, inclusive, in a school in the school district to a course that the pupil has previously completed and received a grade determined by the school district to be sufficient to satisfy the requirements and prerequisites for admission to the California public institutions of postsecondary education and the minimum requirements for receiving a diploma of graduation from high school established in this article because there are not sufficient curricular course offerings for the pupil to take during the relevant period of the designated schoolday.

2.  EDC § 51224.7 (i.e. the ‘California Mathematics Placement Act of 2015’.) 

https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/education-code/edc-sect-51224-7.html

The key provision of EDC § 51224.7 that is violated is:

(b) Governing boards or bodies of local educational agencies that serve pupils entering grade 9 and that have not adopted a fair, objective, and transparent mathematics placement policy, as described in paragraphs (1) to (5), inclusive, as of January 1, 2016, shall, before the beginning of the 2016-17 school year, develop and adopt, in a regularly scheduled public meeting, a fair, objective, and transparent mathematics placement policy for pupils entering grade 9 that does all of the following:

(1) Systematically takes multiple objective academic measures of pupil performance into consideration. For purposes of this paragraph, “objective academic measures” means measures, such as statewide mathematics assessments, including interim and summative assessments authorized pursuant to Section 60640, placement tests that are aligned to state-adopted content standards in mathematics, classroom assignment and grades, and report cards.

EDC § 51224.7 does not set math course limits, as you are attempting to interpret by setting an upper limit of Algebra I. You must place students in whatever math is appropriate based on their level of knowledge and skill. Remember that AR 6152.1 incorporates EDC § 51224.7 in our district.

The ARs and BPs that taken together are violated by the above sentence are:

AR 6146.3: Reciprocity of Academic Credit
AR 6146.1: High School Graduation Requirements
BP/AR 6152.1: Placement in Mathematics Courses

The logic is as follows:

a. By AR 6146.3, LCUSD is required to “receive academic credit for previously completed courses” (for transfer from accredited schools), or “credits transferred from these schools shall be fully accepted when there is evidence that the course work completed is equivalent to similar courses offered in the district.” Here’s the full, relevant excerpt from AR 6146.3:

Transfers from Accredited Schools

Students transferring into the district from an accredited school shall receive full academic credit for previously completed courses when the sending district verifies that the student has satisfactorily completed those courses.

Transfers from Non-Accredited Schools

When a student transfers from any non-accredited private, public, alternative, home or charter school, academic credit shall be subject to approval by the principal or designee at the enrolling school. Credits transferred from these schools shall be fully accepted when there is evidence that the course work completed is equivalent to similar courses offered in this district.

The principal or designee at the enrolling school shall be responsible for determining which of the student’s credits are equivalent to district requirements. Guidelines for determining equivalency shall be developed by representative certificated staff familiar with the district’s academic standards and graduation requirements.

In determining equivalency, the principal and/or designated certificated staff representative may consider one or more of the following:

1. A review of the description of academic content and time requirements of the course work completed by the student compared to academic content and time requirements at the enrolling school
    
2. An examination of the student’s portfolio of work, papers, completed projects, graded tests or other documents demonstrating the student’s level of skill and knowledge
    
3. An opportunity for the student to demonstrate skill by his/her performance on appropriate course-challenging examinations, comprehensive final examinations and/or other culminating exercises used at the enrolling school

Since LCE, PCR and PCY are public elementary schools, they are not accredited by WASC (I checked WASC’s Directory of Schools 2023-24), so the part of AR 6146.3 that applies to rising 7th graders in our district is the ’Transfers from Non-Accredited Schools.’ District 6th graders take the middle school math placement exam as prescribed by AR 6152.1 to “demonstrate skill by his/her performance on appropriate course-challenging examinations.” That’s what the middle school math placement exam is — essentially equivalent to the end-of-course exam for the math courses students are attempting to skip (i.e. Math 7/8 Advanced and Algebra I (8th).) So if a student passes the placement exam, they must be let into the appropriate math course in LCHS 7-12 commensurate with their demonstrated knowledge and skill. There is no theoretical limit to what course a student should be allowed to pass out of. 

If Terence Tao had been enrolled in LCUSD schools (he began completing high school-level mathematics courses at age 7 including Algebra and Geometry, scored a 760 on the math SAT section by age 8, and by age 9 had completed all high school-level math courses including pre-Calculus and Calculus), why on Earth would you order him to retake Algebra I and all courses beyond that under the fantastical notion that LCUSD’s teachers are the only on Earth who can be entrusted to teach Algebra I or above to district students? While we have not to my knowledge had any students of Terence’s freakish math precocity in LCUSD, we have had plenty who were and are capable of learning Algebra in elementary school. I have taught many of those.

You have agreed on multiple occasions in previous meetings that if a student were to transfer in to LCUSD from another country, state or school, you would place the student in LCUSD math courses based on their transcript from their previous school(s), subject to the above BPs and ARs. You also stated if you could not ascertain a proper math course placement in 7-12 based on the student’s transcript, you would administer a “course-challenging examination” as defined in AR 6146.3. I then asked you the hypothetical question of how you would place a student transferring into LCUSD in middle school coming from an East Asian country who had already completed Algebra I (or higher.) You said you would have to place them in the next in-sequence math course, which would be Geometry (or formerly LC Math 2 or LC Math 2 Advanced.) Given the sentence at issue in the proposed amended AR 6152.1 would prevent LCUSD students from skipping Algebra I (8), I then asked you why you hold district students to a higher standard than students transferring in from a foreign country. You did not provide a satisfactory answer in the past and did not in today’s email either.

b.  By BP 6146.1 – High School Graduation Requirements, students must complete approved (graduation) requirements in order to receive a diploma of graduation from LCHS, but students may also complete course requirements for graduation outside of LCHS courses. The relevant parts of BP 6146.1 that are at issue here are highlighted below:

Because the prescribed course of study may not accommodate the needs of some students, the Board shall provide alternative means for the completion of prescribed courses in accordance with law.

Credit for Courses taken online will be accepted as per the following requirements:

1. Prior approval is required before signing up for an online class. The online credit request form is to be completed in advance and requires signatures of parent, student, counselor and administrator.
    
2. Only courses certified by UC/CSU or out of state equivalent are eligible. Institutions offering online courses must have a current UC/CSU or equivalent certified course list which includes the online course being taken.
    
3. Online courses for transfer credit must be taken at a WASC or equivalent accredited institution.
    
4. Online credit approval is granted for credit recovery, acceleration, or enrichment outside the LCHS curricular offerings.

So meeting the Algebra I graduation requirement of LCHS can be met by “alternative means” including acceleration, demonstrated by taking the “appropriate course-challenging examination” described in AR 6146.3, and defined and prescribed in AR 6152.1. 

Therefore you cannot prohibit the completion of Algebra I through the “alternative means” allowed under the above ARs and BPs, including taking the course during summer school or by the middle school math placement exam.

The above was recently litigated in Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) in the case of Edith Cohen, Xin Li, Yiyi Leng, Marek Alboszta v Palo Alto Unified School District (2023). Relevant links to this case are below:

• Grok summary of case
• Judge’s writ of mandate following judgement in the trial
• Palo Alto parent group for the plaintiff’s summary of the 2023 writ of mandate to PAUSD
• San Francisco Examinersummary of case after judgement in 2023
• Palo Alto Online stories about the case: 2021, Judge’s ruling in 2023
• Local newspaper summary of case in 2023

Quoting from source 2 — the judge’s writ of mandate order itself:

Based on theses findings, the court finds that Respondent PAUSD is in violation of and has not complied with mandatory requirements of Education Code Sec. 51224.7(b) (1-4). As result, the court issues Writ of Mandate ordering PAUSD to:

1. Adopt math placement policy that uses multiple objective academic measures as described in Ed. Code Sec. 51224.7 (b)(1) and specifically includes standardized assessments designed to identify proper placement of students. If student wishes to skip the next level in sequence based on independent work, they will have the option of taking proficiency assessment. The measure chosen for the proficiency assessment for 9th grade will consist of an assessment that meets standards set by Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Specifically, measures must show evidence of adequate test-retest reliability and validity. The way the assessment is used to inform placement must be valid and reasonable. Decisions around whether students have mastered content must be evidence-based. It is not permissible to choose an arbitrary, excessively high, cut score that is higher than level of students who are proficient in the content or who have completed the course. In addition, pursuant to Education Code Sec. 51228.2, a student that successfully completed UC approved course in Algebra I, Geometry, or Algebra II, and satisfied the UC eligibility outside PAUSD must not be required to take another course at the same level.

And quoting from source 3 — the Palo Alto parent group’s summary of the writ of mandate:

Significance of the ruling:

The granted petition serves as case law that applies to school districts throughout the state of California that are in violation of the education code. In particular, it makes tactics (iii) in the playbook moot and tactics (iv) difficult to use. The following current practices are violations of the Ed code: 

•  SFUSD’s use of validation tests to force incoming 9th graders that successfully completed UC-approved Algebra courses outside the district to retake these courses. 
•  PAUSD requirement that Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 must be taken in the district (and must be repeated if taken outside the district).  

In both cases, districts are denying students that gained proficiency outside the district the opportunity to progress in the math sequence as they enter 9th grade. The order improves prospects for students that are bound to public schools because external courses and independent work are within reach of many families that can not afford private education. This granted petition will hopefully encourage districts that practice lowering the ceiling to shift their focus to raising the floor.  The petition also implies that the legal requirement of collecting and reporting aggregate data should be taken seriously.  This promotes accountability and the use of evidence-based approaches.

While Cohen v PAUSD dealt with entry to high school at grade 9, EDC 51224.7 allows the California Math Placement act’s provisions to apply at the transition between elementary and middle school, as LCUSD has chosen to do:

(c) Governing boards or bodies of local educational agencies serving pupils who are transitioning between elementary and middle school or elementary and junior high school may develop and implement a mathematics placement policy for these pupils, as applicable, that satisfies paragraphs (1) to (5), inclusive, of subdivision (b).

It is likely that if you persist with asking the Board to adopt the problematic sentence in the proposed revision of AR 6152.1, you will either be subject to a complaint filed under the UCP, and/or sued by a parent who is denied access to a math course commensurate with their child’s demonstrated mastery, and based on the PAUSD ruling, you would likely lose.

As an aside, I believe this also means several other provisions of BPs/ARs and school policies the district has in place are in violation of the same ed codes:

– AR 6146.32 – Transcript Credit for Summer Course Work contains the following provision that prohibits the taking of English courses for credit that violates EDC § 51228.2:

4. Outside agency summer school courses taken for acceleration will be included for transcript credit on the District transcript, but will be limited to 10 summer school credits per summer prior to the beginning of the regular school year in grades nine through twelve, for a total of four courses maximum. Full credit will be given for the courses taken at qualified outside agency summer schools and the grade earned will be recorded on the District transcript with identification of the outside agency noted. A maximum of 40 summer school credits may be applied to meeting graduation requirements. English courses that satisfy the graduation requirements may not be taken for acceleration in other educational institutions as the alignment with Common Core State Standards and the District writing requirement cannot be ensured through other curricula.

– LCHS math department policy that states:

Math courses may be taken in summer or through pre-approved, accredited online schools for advancement and remediation. Since summer and online math courses differ in pace, sequence, and depth of instruction, students and their families should consider wisely acceleration in mathematics. Students taking math during the summer may not enroll in the advanced level of the next in sequence class.

– The highlighted provisions of the LCHS Course Approval Form for Non-LCUSD Courses:

And from a practical point of view, the sentence at issue in AR 6152.1 would not have affected any LCUSD students the past three years, and by my estimate would affect no more than a handful of rising 7th graders, and maybe up to 10 rising 8th graders next school year.

It seems to me the easiest course going forward is to strike the following sentence from your proposed revision of AR 6152.1:

No mathematics placement assessment will be given for Algebra I (8), nor may students take this class for acceleration during the summer.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you,

-Sugi-
—

---