Recap of LCUSD Governing Board Meeting of June 03, 2025

by Sugi Sorensen, June 07, 2025

Overview

On Tuesday June 03, 2025, the La Cañada Unified School District (LCUSD) Governing Board held a regularly scheduled meeting at its District Offices at 4490 Cornishon Ave in La Canada. Among the items on the meeting agenda was item 12.h – Recommended Updates to Administrative Regulation 6152.1: Placement in Mathematics Courses, R204-24-2. LCUSD Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum & Instruction Jim Cartnal gave a short presentation on item 12.h to the Governing Board, district cabinet and staff, and about two dozen parents in attendance.

Cartnal explained the purpose and proposed revisions of AR 6152.1, which governs placement of district students in math courses at the transition from elementary to middle school (i.e. grade 7) and the transition from middle school to high school (i.e. grade 9.) Cartnal’s presentation slides may be viewed here.

AR 6152.1 is required by California Education Code (EDC) § 51224.7, the ‘California Mathematics Placement Act of 2015’.  The purpose of the Math Placement Act was to address the issue of math misplacement, a phenomenon where many students, particularly Black and Hispanic students, were forced to retake math courses they had already satisfactorily completed.¹ The Act requires California public school districts to place students in math courses based on fair, objective, and transparent protocols, not just a teacher’s subjective recommendation.

The Act applies to students of all abilities, which means that students should not be restricted from enrolling in higher-level courses due to arbitrary or biased policies. The Act does not set a cap on the level of mathematics a student can be placed in. One of the changes recommended by LCUSD staff to AR 6152.1 in agenda item 12.h proposed to limit rising 7th graders from testing out of Algebra I (8).

Initial Staff Presentation

Cartnal explained to the Board that the recent changes to the LCHS 7-12 math pathways had precipitated some major changes in how math courses are sequenced and compacted, and he explained that one of the major outcomes of these changes was the compaction of the former Math 7 Advanced and Math 8 Advanced courses into a single-year Math 7/8 Advanced course:

Readers new to this topic (discussed here, here and here by LCMP previously) should know that the LCHS 7-12 math pathway changes that began in the 2023-24 school year also uncompacted the three high school courses in the Advanced Pathway so that what used to take three years to complete (i.e. the standards of Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II/Trigonometry, Pre-Calculus contained in LC Math 1 Advanced, LC Math 2 Advanced, and LC Math 3 Advanced courses) was uncompressed into four distinct courses with one year per topic – Algebra I (8), Honors Geometry, Honors Algebra II/Trig, and AP Pre-Calculus:

Staff recommended five changes to AR 6152.1, grouped by sections of the administrative regulation:

1. Part 1 – Purpose of policy and statement of five objective academic measures that the district must take into consideration when placing pupils in math in grades 7 and 9. NO CHANGES – The district did not modify anything in Part 1.
2. Part 2 – Exemptions for Students in Grades 6 & 9 – Four changes:
   • Part 2 section title changed:“Exemptions for Students in Grades 6 and 9 Performing Above Grade Level” to “Guidelines for Families – Acceleration and Placement in Advanced Classes.”
   • Part 2 first paragraph beginning sentence changed: “For students in grades 6 and 8 rising 7th grade students, parents/guardians will receive communication from site administration informing them of the opportunity to take mathematics placement assessment(s), qualifying them for placement in mathematic courses above grade level.”
   • New sentence added at end of first paragraph of Part 2: “Each mathematics placement may be taken up to 2 times and students must achieve seventy percent (70%) or higher in order to be considered for placement in mathematics courses above grade level.” [NOTE: The former pass score was 80%, though it was not specified in the AR.]
   • New sentence also added stating: “No mathematics placement assessment will be given for Algebra I (8), nor may students take this class for acceleration during the summer.”
3. Part 3 – Parent/Guardian and Pupil Recourse for Challenging Mathematics Placement – One change:
   • Recourse provision three: “Parent/Guardian may sign a waiver requesting that the pupil be placed in the next in sequence course advanced level mathematics class of their grade level, against the professional recommendation of site administration, acknowledging and accepting responsibility of this placement.”

Cartnal further explained that the challenge test prescribed by AR 6152.1 now requires rising 7th graders to demonstrate completion of two years of standards (7th and 8th grade) so that suggested students should not be allowed to skip more than two years of standards. He justified this prohibition by stating:

“We’ve been thinking deeply about how we support students. We value the La Cañada difference. We care about our kids. We want to excite and have them reach for high bars. It’s also important to say that when we say that we’re asking them (students) to take Algebra I (8) with us, we recognize that the changes in the high school math pathway allows them of course to accelerate, but what we’re asking is does it make sense for them to accelerate between 8th and 9th grade?”

Cartnal also explained that the administration had worked hard with community partners on the proposed changes, but emphasized that the proposed changes originated from LCHS 7/8 teachers with support from site administration (i.e. LCHS 7/8 Principal Jarrett Gold.) LCMP leadership had indeed been invited by LCUSD staff to preview the proposed changes, and met with LCUSD staff twice previously on April 25, 2025 and May 16, 2025. During those meetings, the proposed changes listed above were discussed and LCMP had agreed with four of the five changes, including recommending lowering the placement test pass score from 80% to 70%. LCMP resolutely disagreed with the fourth change – the inclusion of the sentence, “No mathematics placement assessment will be given for Algebra I (8), nor may students take this class for acceleration during the summer.” In fact, LCMP leadership had objected to this sentence in both meetings and left the May 16th meeting believing staff would remove it for the reasons stated in this article published by LCMP on May 30th.

Board Q&A and Discussion

Following his presentation, the Board engaged in a lengthy discussion with Cartnal and other district staff about the proposed changes to AR 6152.1. Rather than list all of the questions asked by the Board as well as staff’s responses, I will highlight key points that emerged from the discussion with links to the correct timestamp in the recording of the webcast of the meeting on YouTube so readers may review the comments in their full context.

I have also omitted discussions where all Board members were in agreement with any of the five proposed changes listed above. For example, there was substantive discussion about the proposed change to Part 3 of AR 6152.1, the so-called waiver mechanism, but neither the Board nor staff expressed opposition to this proposed change nor did they ask for changes to it. LCMP has consistently agreed to the proposed change to Part 3 as well.

The Myth That Accelerated Students Slow Down Classes

Governing Board Clerk Josh Epstein asked staff to explain how they came to the recommendations they did, particularly the change to stop advancement of rising 7th graders beyond Algebra I (8). In his answer, Cartnal said the following (at 1h 44m 30s):

“The teachers were coming forward to express that they were seeing in some cases students who were working above grade level who…their concern was they didn’t have the requisite foundational understanding, and that they were seeing student math confidence erode, that they were reporting that they felt like those students were really kind of needing some re-teaching, in some cases a lot of reteaching. And that was taking away from the class as a whole. And so there was this conversation that we were having at this site about should this be something that we look at? Should there be some guardrails if you will know that we’ve so radically changed the 7/8 math pathway?”

Later during discussion on what the cut score should be for math placement exams prescribed under AR 6152.1, Board member Dan Jeffries made the following statement (at 2h 06m 40s):

“The reason I’m going with all this (i.e. a higher 80% or 85% cut score for math placement exams), is that I think our concern, or at least the concern of some of our teachers is that if you have kids that are placed above a level that they should be, then the teacher spends an inordinate amount of time with that particular student trying to fill in the information that they’ve missed, or things they didn’t fully understand, or things that they didn’t completely get, and that teacher will end up spending a lot of time with that student to the detriment of other students. And I think that’s what we want to avoid.”

The belief that accelerated, above-grade level students in mathematics lack foundational understanding and are moving on to higher math courses where they slow down the pace of instruction for other students has been regularly asserted by staff and board members for at least ten years, yet has never been substantiated with data. The issue came up in the two meetings LCMP leadership had with district staff on April 15th and May 16th, and several parents addressed it in their public comments during the June 3rd Board meeting. More on that later.

LCMP leadership strongly believes this narrative is a myth and has steadfastly challenged staff to provide proof by comparing the grades, test scores, and teacher feedback about accelerated to non-accelerated students. LCMP has monitored the progress of LCUSD students who accelerate in math in 7-12 for at least nine years by regularly checking in with parents and students who accelerated in middle school and the feedback received is consistent — that accelerated math students excel in higher math classes, find the pace of instruction too slow and it is non-accelerated students who slow down the pace of instruction in the classroom. LCMP has even offered on several occasions to share the names of accelerated students with district staff to verify themselves, but the district has steadfastly ignored the offer.

Barriers to Advancement Should be Removed

Board member Joe Radabaugh was the first board member to express opposition to arbitrarily limiting students from advancing in math courses if they demonstrate competency through placement tests (at 1h 47m 13s):

“…I don’t want to do things that potentially limit the potential of some of our amazing students. So I’m struggling with the cap. I know it’s a big jump – it’s been explained that the compaction out of 7th grade is a lot, and to jump again on top of that is a lot, especially when we’re just trying to try it out. But we do have some brilliant students, and those that can demonstrate competency? I’m in favor of potentially looking at another option.”

Board Vice-President Octavia Thuss strongly supported Radabaugh’s sentiment not to hold back students who are able (at 1h 49m 50s):

“I’d like to speak to the capping concept. I take a pretty extreme view on this and I’ve expressed it over the years that I’m not interested in limiting students and their potential, at all. Never have been. Not into it. Not my thing. I see the sentence where it says, ‘No mathematics placement assessment will be given for Algebra I …’ and I do take issue with that. And I’m wondering what can be done about that.”

Cartnal responded that they (staff) are welcome and ready to take direction from the Board and are prepared to create an Algebra I (8) skip test. He said it may take some additional time as they do not have that (i.e. the Algebra I (8) skip test) immediately available in the next week.

Thuss, emphasizing her opposition to limiting opportunity, followed up with:

“And I want to reiterate as a parent of a variety of children and abilities and drive and motivation, these exceptions are far and few between. But I think providing the opportunity (for these exceptions) is so critical. And that’s something that I take a little bit of an extreme view. I understand the concept of ‘guardrails,’ but capping is not my thing. However, I’d really love to see us have an Algebra I test in place. Very soon.”

The Math Placement Act is Not Really About Advancement, It’s About Protected Classes

Board member Jeffries tried to counter the sentiment of members Radabaugh and Thuss to remove barriers to advancement (at 1h 52m 00s) by asserting that the 2015 California Mathematics Placement Act was really about equity, and “does not have anything to do with guaranteeing that you can place forward. Actually it was completely about something different.” He quoted from the Act, its author, and the Cohen versus Palto Alto USD (2023) case by recasting AR 6152.1 and EDC § 51224.7 as originally intended to protect only protected classes. Protected classes under both California and Federal law are groups of people safeguarded from discrimination based on certain characteristics such as race, color, sex, age, or religion. Jeffries said:

“We can’t have a policy that only allows male students to advance at a different rate, or non African American students or anything else, but we all know that. We all know that we would never want to do that, so I just want to be clear that I think that the discussion we should have is ‘what is appropriate?’ Should we have any barriers and if so what should those barriers or hurdles or tests or things like that be as you move up?”

EDC § 51224.7 never explicitly references protected classes as defined under California or US federal code, though it does align with the general principles of non-discrimination found in civil rights laws since it does include a reporting provision that local educational agencies (LEA’s meaning school districts mostly) examine “aggregate pupil placement data annually to ensure that pupils who are qualified to progress in mathematics courses based on their performance on objective academic measures selected for inclusion in the policy pursuant to paragraph (1) are not held back in a disproportionate manner on the basis of their race, ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic background.”

Jeffries’ recasting of AR 6152.1 as an equity intended legal remedy for protected classes that requires objective criteria, but allows creating barriers to advancement, continued in his justification for why the cut score on math placement exams should be raised above 80%. Jeffries made the following statement (at 2h 05m 45s) while debating fellow members about what the appropriate cut score should be on placement exams:

“And I would argue that it should be 80% or higher for both of those (i.e. the Math 7/8 Advanced skip test and the Algebra I (8) skip test) because the concept we’re looking at this as to whether they’ve shown mastery of the subject, not whether they are competent or able to get by. And 70% may be good in a lot of things, but to show mastery of the subject I would argue that you should 80% or even higher.”

Mastery versus Proficiency/Competency

The board was sharply divided in their interpretation about how EDC § 51224.7 and the Cohen v Palo Alto USD ruling in 2023 defined the level of achievement students wishing to take math placement exams must demonstrate in order to be allowed to skip a course. Board member Radabaugh consistently referred to competency as the standard, while board member Jeffries consistently insisted the law required mastery of material.

While this may appear to be a distinction without a difference, it is crucially important to understanding the Cohen v Palo Alto USD case and ruling, as well as understanding where to set the bar for math placement tests as prescribed in AR 6152.1. Jeffries repeatedly expressed the belief that the cut score on math placement tests should be raised to ~85% or higher, and the number of opportunities to take the placement tests reduced to once, because as he put it (at 2h 01m 52s):

“One of the things that jumped to my mind when I was reading that (the judge’s ruling in the Cohen v Palo Alto USD case) is the 70% is not to me showing mastery of a subject. I don’t know that I would want to fly with a pilot who only scored a 70% on their FAA test, or have cardiac surgery done by a surgeon at 70%, and I’m sure the JPL people wouldn’t think that a project that is 70% likely to be successful … Somehow we came on that 70% because that is the number where we decide that a student doesn’t have to repeat a course. But I think that’s apples and oranges to whether they’ve shown mastery of a subject, and I believe mastery of a subject should be a higher number than 70%. And I would propose that mastery of a subject should be whatever the average grade in that course is.”

In this issue, Jeffries consistently misrepresented the presiding judge’s ruling in the Cohen v Palo Alto USD. Jeffries insisted that students must demonstrate mastery of math course content they intended to skip. Yet Judge Carrie A. Zepeda wrote in her ruling and Writ of Mandate Palo Alto USD:

“It is not permissible to choose an arbitrary, excessively high, cut score that is higher than a level of students who are proficient in the content or who have completed the course.”²

There is no mention in EDC § 51224.7, AR 6152.1, (or BP 6152.1) of what level of understanding a student must demonstrate on the “placement tests that are aligned to state-adopted content standards in mathematics.”

There’s a difference between passing a course, demonstrating proficiency (or competency as Radabaugh put it) in a course, and demonstrating mastery in a course. Zepeda’s ruling sets the bar at the “level of students who are proficient in the content or who have completed the course.”

As to what the difference is between mastery, proficiency and passing a course or its content, mastery and proficiency are not defined in the California Education Code, nor in LCUSD BPs or ARs (though passing is considered a C– or above for UC a-g courses, which translates to 70% on a 100-point scale, and a D– on non UC a-g courses, or 60%)³, but can be informed by looking at standardized assessments such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), held bi-annually to assess the state of student achievement across the country. The NAEP sets three levels of achievement (defined here) for its English and mathematics assessments:

• Students performing at the NAEP Basic level have partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills that are fundamental at the NAEP Proficient level.
• Students performing at the NAEP Proficient level have demonstrated competency over challenging material, including subject-matter knowledge, application of such knowledge to real-world situations, and analytical skills.
• Students performing at the NAEP Advanced level have shown superior performance.

 In NAEP’s rubric, NAEP Basic corresponds to completion in LCUSD. NAEP Proficient by definition corresponds to proficiency here as it is the same word. And NAEP Advanced would roughly correspond to mastery in LCUSD. Jeffries’ call for setting the placement exam pass score at 85% is consistent with his repeated call for students demonstrating mastery, not proficiency or completion as Judge Zepeda’s ruling requires.

Take the Test Once or Twice?

Since AR 6152.1 was last amended in December 2015, it has prescribed that the math placement tests must be offered twice to students.⁴ Board debated whether to change the number of times the placement tests are offered since it was one of the five changes proposed by staff in their proposal to the Board.

Board members Epstein, Thuss, Anderson, and Radabaugh expressed support for staff’s recommended addition of the sentence, “Each mathematics placement may be taken up to 2 times…” Board member Jeffries opposed this change and recommended instead that the placement tests be offered once. He explained his reasoning as follows (2h 10m 41s):

“…But we’re talking about kids who are advancing. We’re not talking about kids who we’re grading based on it. We’re talking about kids who want to move to a faster, higher level, and certainly the JPL people would never argue that you should get two shots at a mission. If you’ve mastered the subject, you should be able to test well when you take the test. … I would argue that we should really offer it only one time.”

Jeffries later backed down on this proposal and withdrew it when staff explained that the test has been offered twice for years and it would not be a burden to offer both a Math 7/8 Advanced and an Algebra I (8) skip test twice before next school year.

Public Comments

Initial discussion by the Board was followed by public comments (@ 2h 16m 28s.) Seven parents in total made public comments, six expressing the general sentiment that students wishing to advance in their mathematics course placement should not be held back. Most of the parents also related the experience of their children in district math courses and taking and passing (or not in some cases) the middle school math placement exam.

LCUSD parents who spoke and their main points are listed below. Click on the timestamp links to see their comment and, in some cases, dialogue with Board members:

1. Jenny Hu (@2h 16m 30s) – Talked about the experience of her own 6th grade son at PCR who really loves math and took the placement exam on May 23rd. She said he didn’t enjoy math until he was really challenged, and they had to go outside the schools and pay for math enrichment to challenge him adequately. It sparked his love of math and he engaged in multiple math extracurricular activities as a result, including Math Olympiad and representing the district at LA County Math Field Day. She also told about the experience of her older daughter who took the middle school math placement exam when she was in 6th grade, but did not pass because she was not informed in a timely enough manner and the letter from staff lied about the rigor of the placement exam itself.⁵
   
   She said her daughter, who is getting an A+ and 100% in all of her math courses and feels inadequately challenged, is not allowed to advance in math outside of school because of the LCHS math department policy that forces students taking outside math courses during the summer to be placed down into the lower math pathway. She said students shouldn’t be held back due to arbitrary barriers and asked the district to really support their students who are capable and willing.
2. Patty Whong (@ 2h 19m 58s) – Talked about the experience of her three children in LCUSD, two of whom had taken the placement test. Her oldest child is already out of high school. Her middle child is in 10th grade, is one year accelerated, barely missed the cutoff to pass two years, is extremely bored in his current class, and wished he had accelerated more. Her younger son took the placement exam, did not pass, so she held him back and he had to retake the class for which he did not pass out of. He said the class he took outside the school was much harder, went deeper than the class the school offered and the school skipped entire units of study that were not skipped in the outside class.
   
   She also asserted that the math diagnostic exams are harder than the final exams taken by students in the math courses themselves. She said her middle child who took the old Math 8 Advanced placement test after passing the Math 7 Advanced placement test was much harder than the final exam offered in the Math 8 Advanced class when he took it the next year after not passing the placement test. She also advocated for allowing students to take the placement test twice since one of her sons experienced this, did not pass the first time, but did the second.
3. Geoff Ward (@ 2h 25m 53s) – Has three students in the district. Talked about the experience of his oldest son, a 6th grader at LCE. He was really excited to know that at the end of 6th grade his son would finally be allowed to advance in math to a level that would challenge him. He was also really disappointed to find out last week that the district is proposing to hold back students arbitrarily. When his son arrived in 6th grade, he challenged the class by asking that his son take the end-of-course exam. He was allowed to take the 6th grade final exam in math, scored a 91%, but was told by the school that there was nothing they could do for him and he would just have to sit in class, “because we get money by having you in the seat.” He then tried to ask that his son be allowed to study independently (on material he was learning outside the school) and the school would not allow it. As a result, he was stuck in class the entire year, bored to death and forced to re-take the end-of-year exam.
4. Ashley Grace (@ 2h 31m 18s) – A professor at California State University at Northridge, she spoke in defense of listening to teachers, and pointed out that as a professor at CSUN she sees students who are struggling every day and not doing well, and she implored the district to keep this in mind and focus on wellness. She also asked the district to not just listen to anecdotal stories (from parents), but make informed decisions based on data. She argued that the 70% cutoff was too low, she even felt that 80% was too low to demonstrate subject mastery, and she asked that the district ask teachers for their opinions.
5. Sugi Sorensen (@ 2h 36m 18s) – Clarified several factually incorrect statements made by both Board and staff about issues earlier in the meeting, and challenged the assertion by Board and staff that accelerated students who pass the math placement tests slow down future math courses in high school.
6. Pablo Kurlat ( @ 2h 51m 43m) – Talked about his personal situation with his two twin 6th graders in math at LCE. He said the experience of his students has been frustrating because they haven’t been challenged in math so far in school. He emphasized this is not a criticism of the teachers, that they are wonderful, the range of needs in a (heterogeneous) class of 30 students is broad, and the standards are what they are. He said his kids accepted the fact that they would just have to plod along in math until the transition to middle school, at which point they could take the placement exam and place into a level of math that appropriately challenged them. He said both of his kids took the exam last week, believed they did well, and were looking forward to the opportunity to try to test out of Algebra I (8) as well. He said it would be disappointing to his kids if they were denied the opportunity to try. He asked that the district offer the Algebra I (8) placement exams if the district could do it.
7. Tracy Liu ( @ 2h 53m 32s) – Talked about the experience of her four children in LCUSD. Her oldest child took the placement test but didn’t pass – scored in the 70s the first time, but was allowed to pass out of Math 7/8 Advanced when he demonstrated subject mastery to the head math teacher at LCHS 7/8 while reviewing his exam. So he was allowed to take Algebra I (8), had no issues, and received an A in the class. She asked her son if the accelerated 7th graders in Algebra I (8) were holding back class. He answered no, that the 7th graders who are one year accelerated are doing better than the 8th graders in the Algebra I (8) class. While acknowledging her story was just anecdotal evidence, she implored the district to analyze the objective data they have to examine how accelerated students do in Algebra I (8) versus non-accelerated students. She said that instead of choosing an arbitrary cutoff for the placement exams, they should look at historical data and make a properly informed decision. She said with regard to students demonstrating mastery, she said the school shouldn’t hold students taking the placement test to a higher standard than the students taking the class itself on grade level. She said doing so is an arbitrary barrier.

Summary of Board Action

The Board then engaged in a diligent follow-up discussion after the parent input and gave direction to district staff to make revisions to the proposed modifications that had been presented to them. Since the agenda item was a First Read, the Board could not vote on the item. The item will presumably come back to the board for a Second Read and formal approval at a future Board meeting.

The Board made the following direction to staff on proposed changes to AR 6152.1

1. The board agreed to set the cut scores for the Math 7/8 Advanced skip test at
   70%, and 80% for the Algebra I (8) skip test.
2. The board took a straw vote and unanimously approved modifying the third pupil recourse provision as originally proposed, so that if parents sign a waiver, they can only request that their student be placed in the advanced level mathematics class of their grade level. In other words, if students do not pass the Math 7/8 Advanced placement exam, they cannot be placed in Algebra I (8) or above by waiver.
3. The board directed staff to offer the Math 7/8 Advanced and Algebra I (8) placement tests twice. Superintendent Sinnette said that staff could create an Algebra I (8) test and offer it twice this year, once in late-June and once in August.
4. The board directed staff to develop an Algebra I (8) challenge test.
5. The board directed staff to modify the sentence, “No mathematics placement assessment will be given for Algebra I (8), nor may students take this class for acceleration during the summer” to remove any barrier to advancing beyond Algebra I (8), but will leave in the prohibition for students from taking an Algebra I (8) class for acceleration during the summer.

Board member Epstein also asked staff to gather and present more data about the placement test results so that the Board can be better informed about making possible adjustments to the policy, and presumably the placement tests themselves, in the future. Staff took the direction gladly and agreed to work with LCMP in doing a better job publishing math placement exam results to the community.

---

1. California PTA: What You Need to Know About the New Math Placement Law ↩︎
2. Order after hearing of petition of Writ of Mandate, Case 21CV385694 in Edith Cohen, Xin Li, Yiyi Zeng, Marek Alboszta, Petitioners vs. Palo Alto Unified School District, Respondents. ↩︎
3. See La Canada High School Course Catalog: 2025-26 Offerings, retrieved June 07, 2025. ↩︎
4. Recourse provision #2 of AR 6152.1 as last amended on 12/05/2015 states, “Parent/Guardian may formally request that the student retake the end of the course final, summative assessment. Parent/Guardian may request reconsideration of mathematics placement based upon this data.” While strictly speaking it can be argued that AR 6152.1 does not require that the test be offered twice, it is ambiguous and LCUSD since 2015 has interpreted the AR to mean placement tests must be offered twice. ↩︎
5. Until this year, the email from LCHS 7/8 administration sent to district 6th grade parents in early March of their child’s 6th grade year (i.e. less than 3 months from the placement exam in May) included the disingenuous sentence, “No preparation should be needed for a child who has been performing above grade level and is ready for an above-grade-level placement.” For example, here’s the letter sent in 2024. ↩︎