San Francisco’s Failed Experiment: A Lesson on Equity in Math Teaching
In recent years, the issue of equity in education has been at the forefront of discussions and initiatives in schools across the United States. One of the areas that has received particular attention is math education, where the achievement gap between different groups of students has been a cause for concern. In an effort to address this gap, the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) embarked on a bold experiment to eliminate tracking of math students. However, this experiment has not yielded the desired results and has instead cast a long shadow over efforts for equity in math teaching.
Tracking is the practice of grouping students according to their perceived ability level in a particular subject. In the case of math, this often means separating students into different classes based on their performance in previous math courses. The idea behind tracking is that it allows teachers to tailor their instruction to the specific needs of each group, and thus, improve overall student achievement. However, this practice has been criticized for perpetuating inequality, as students from marginalized groups are often placed in lower-level classes, limiting their opportunities for academic advancement.
In 2014, SFUSD decided to take a bold step towards addressing this issue by eliminating tracking in math. The district believed that this move would promote equity by giving all students access to the same rigorous curriculum and instruction. The decision was met with both praise and skepticism, with some applauding the district’s commitment to equity, while others questioned the feasibility of such a drastic change.
Six years later, the results of this experiment are in, and they are not what the district had hoped for. A recent study by the Public Policy Institute of California found that the elimination of tracking in math had no significant impact on student achievement. In fact, the study showed that students who were previously placed in advanced math classes saw a decline in their performance, while those in lower-level classes showed no improvement. This has raised concerns about the effectiveness of the district’s approach and has sparked a debate about the best way to promote equity in math education.
So, what does this failed experiment in San Francisco teach us about equity in math teaching? Firstly, it highlights the complexity of the issue. While the elimination of tracking may seem like a simple solution, it fails to address the underlying factors that contribute to the achievement gap. Factors such as socioeconomic status, access to quality education, and cultural biases all play a role in a student’s academic performance. Therefore, a more comprehensive approach is needed to promote equity in math teaching.
Secondly, the experiment in San Francisco serves as a reminder that one size does not fit all. Every student is unique, with different learning styles and abilities. As such, a one-size-fits-all approach to math instruction is not effective. Instead, teachers need to have the flexibility to adapt their teaching methods to meet the individual needs of their students. This means providing differentiated instruction, where students are given opportunities to learn at their own pace and in a way that best suits their learning style.
Finally, the failed experiment in San Francisco highlights the importance of teacher training and support. Teachers are the key to promoting equity in math education. They need to be equipped with the knowledge and skills to effectively teach a diverse group of students. This includes understanding the cultural backgrounds and experiences of their students and incorporating culturally responsive teaching practices in their instruction. Additionally, teachers need ongoing support and professional development to continuously improve their teaching methods and address any challenges that may arise.
In conclusion, the failed experiment in San Francisco to eliminate tracking of math students has shed light on the complexities of promoting equity in math education. It has shown us that there is no quick fix to addressing the achievement gap and that a more comprehensive and individualized approach is needed. It has also emphasized the crucial role of teachers and the need for ongoing support and training. While the results may not have been what the district had hoped for, this experience serves as a valuable lesson for all of us in our efforts to promote equity and ensure that every student has an equal opportunity to succeed in math and beyond.
