Court slaps state board’s wrist in algebra case
The state school boards’ and administrators’ associations have won a two-year old suit against the State School Board over a controversy involving eighth-grade algebra. The impact of the decision will be minor, though the decision does serve as a warning to the State Board to follow the state’s open-meeting law.
At issue was the State School Board’s decision to require school districts to start testing students in Algebra I as the state’s sole eighth-grade assessment.
The California School Boards Association and the Association of California School Administrators opposed making algebra universal for eighth graders, as did the California Teachers Association and Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell, who also joined the suit. They sued not over the decision but over the process, arguing that the State Board failed to give the public adequate notice of its impending action to decide the issue, as required by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. The associations wanted an opportunity to explore the full implications of the decision on students and school districts.
A district court and now the 3rd District Court of Appeal have upheld an injunction against the state board. Check here for the school boards association’s statement on the decision.
Since 2008, events have superseded the case. Algebra I will be part of the debate over common-core standards that California and other states will consider adopting by Aug. 2. Under the current common-core draft, Algebra I would not be universal in eighth grade, although an as yet unappointed state standards commission and the State Board still could add the requirement for California.
There will be hearings on the issue this summer. The court decision will serve as a reminder to keep the process open and transparent – and let the public have its say.
2 Comments
"Darn, I wish I had read that over again before I hit send.” Don’t let this be your lament. To promote a civil dialogue, please be considerate, respectful and mindful of your tone. We encourage you to use your real name, but if you must use a nom de plume, stick with it. Anonymous postings will be removed.
 |
Did You Know?
Just the Facts
Other Sites to Watch
View More >>
SVEF is the education foundation advocating for the needs of school districts across Silicon Valley. SVEF seeks to improve public education through establishing partnerships with the private sector and the education community ..
The grade 8 math dust-up two years ago was unfortunate on several dimensions. First, on a substantive level, CA does not have a co-ordinated instruction/assessment program for grade 8 math. The instruction program approved by the SBE calls for Algebra for those who are ready for it, and Algebra Readiness for those who are not yet ready for full blown Algebra [roughly 40 percent of the student enrollment]. The assessment program’s Algebra I test is OK for the 60 percent taking Algebra I but the General Math test is not aligned to the Algebra Readiness framework and textbooks adopted by the SBE. It is possible to modify CA’s assessment program to align with the instruction program, and meet NCLB peer review requirements [it was NCLB peer review that forced this issue for CA], but neither the CDE nor the SBE seriously investigated this option two years ago. Instead, both the CDE and SBE pursued a single Algebra test [the CDE a watered down test, the SBE the current more rigorous test] and ended up in court. Second, on a process level the court slapped the SBE for a Bagley-Keene violation on this issue. Unfortunately, both the SBE and the CDE have been guilty skirting around the edges or violating Bagley-Keene not only on the grade 8 math issue two years ago but also for the AB 2040 Panel CAHSEE Special Education issue in 2009 and the SIG persistently low-achieving schools issue this year [two months ago]. There is a pattern with respect to lack of transparency on policy decisions at both the SBE and the CDE, and these failures have led to unvetted and/or poor decisions on these issues at the SBE level. Corrections are needed on both the substantive level and the process level. Doug McRae, Retired Test Publisher, Monterey, CA
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
“There is a pattern with respect to lack of transparency on policy decisions at both the SBE and the CDE…”
Let’s not forget the SBE’s reversal over lunch regarding the Western Sierra Collegiate charter appeal last March. During its slated time on the agenda, the appeal failed before the SBE. After a lunch break, the SBE announced that it would take another vote on the charter the following day — after the Rocklin USD opposition left for the day.
http://www.sacbee.com/2009/08/22/2130292/rocklin-schools-sue-state-board.html
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity