CONVERSATION
On March 20, a group of San Francisco parents sued the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) over its math curriculum, which they say violates state law.
It’s not just a technical complaint. The district’s math education policy, the plaintiffs say, hinders students who want to push ahead, potentially to pursue STEM careers, and discriminates against low-income and other underserved kids. They say it’s an equity issue — the same reason the policy was put in place 10 years ago.
“Kids with the least resources are not getting access to high-quality math education, which is widening the inequity in our system,” says Annesa Flentje, a professor at the UCSF School of Nursing, a mother of three SFUSD students, and the lawsuit’s lead plaintiff.
In 2014, the Board of Education eliminated Algebra 1 in 8th grade, which meant without extra work — a summer course, doubling up two courses in one semester, or a “compression course” to cram two subjects into one semester — SFUSD high schoolers can’t reach advanced calculus. Students who take algebra in private middle school or a summer course have to take it again if they go to a public high school.
The 2014 shift was supposed to boost rates of Black and brown high schoolers taking advanced math. According to a Stanford University School of Education study, which SFUSD announced the same day the lawsuit was filed, there has been a “modest” increase of students in 12th grade math classes and a “slight” increase of Black students taking pre-calculus. But the study, led by Prof. Tom Dee, concluded that racial and ethnic “gaps in student enrollment in advanced math continue to persist.”https://twitter.com/ProfTDee/status/1637775092750123009?s=20
Math scores in 11th grade also remain low. In 2015, 53 percent of students met the state standard, but just 11 percent of Black and 16 percent of Latino students.
There was little movement by 2019. (12 percent of Black and 15 percent of Latino students met the standard, compared to 48 percent overall.) In 2022, only 9 percent of Black and 12 percent of Latino students met the standard, compared to 46 percent overall.
The district, which has also pledged to change reading instruction, said the study is only part of the evidence it’s using to “make improvements” to its math program. “This research from Stanford helps us know how our math programming is influencing the courses taken by San Francisco students,” Superintendent Matt Wayne said in a statement.
The district has until April 21 to respond to the lawsuit.
Lead plaintiff Flentje spoke with The Frisc about the math curriculum failing her kids, her attempts to advocate for change, and how the lawsuit is a final effort to prompt the district to listen to her concerns.
The conversation has been edited and condensed.
The Frisc: why did you decide to file the lawsuit?
Annesa Flentje: The reason I filed is because San Francisco’s public school system is creating significant inequity. Kids with the least resources are not getting access to high-quality math education. It’s a policy and practice of systemic oppression where only kids with means can achieve higher-level math. SFUSD’s homegrown math curriculum is subpar, starting at the elementary school level, and their intervention to make everyone take Algebra 1 in ninth grade is not fixing the problem.
Can you provide an overview of your lawsuit?
SFUSD is not compliant with California state law. The California Mathematics Placement Act requires kids to be assessed and placed in appropriate math classes, but SFUSD has a one-size-fits-all approach. Kids who have failed math in middle school are put in Algebra 1 in ninth grade, and those who have already completed pre-calculus are put in Algebra 1. This is not good for their development and does not let them reach their fullest potential.
Additionally, California law says that if a student has taken a class already, they cannot be forced to retake it. But SFUSD is forcing students to retake Algebra 1 or geometry, even if they have already taken it. California law also says algebra should be offered as early as seventh grade and included throughout. Overall, this limits SFUSD students’ opportunities in STEM careers and creates inequity.
Are there examples of your own children being negatively impacted by the math program?
One was told he could get to calculus by taking a compression course in high school, which combines some Algebra 2 and pre-calculus content. However, trusted teachers and parents warned that the course was inadvisable. I’ve learned from parents whose children did take the course [that] it actually diminished their child’s love for math.
SFUSD policies led to my son rethinking his career trajectory as an engineer. My other child is being forced to retake a course he already passed, violating his rights under the education code. It has been tough for him to sit in coursework he has already completed and not learn math, as he has been a math enthusiast all throughout school.
How have you tried to work with the district to address your concerns?
I tried every advocacy effort I could think of, contacting my children’s school, counselors, assistant principal, principal, school district, math department, Board of Education, elected officials, and the superintendent. When those efforts failed, I filed a uniform complaint and appealed to the state Board of Education, but no action was taken, leading us to take this next necessary step.
How do you believe the math program should change?
We need information from math education experts. It means really following a math program that has been shown to be efficacious. The most important thing is to be child-focused — helping each child to meet their fullest potential. That should start early on and continue all the way through high school.
How do you think the current course sequence is affecting students from different demographic groups, such as low-income students or students with disabilities?
Math is a really important building block for anyone who wants to be in STEM. Let’s say you want to go to an engineering school or have a career in STEM, and you would like to get to calculus. Students are offered the option of taking a summer course or doubling up on math courses, but these options can be a privilege and require additional resources. The demographic that could be harmed by taking a summer course is the group that maybe needs to hold a job or to help their family business during the summer. This is just one way that kids can have a harder time really achieving their educational goals.
What do you hope to achieve through your lawsuit? How will you measure success?
The lawsuit is a step, but I will measure success through SFUSD really complying with California law, which I think is looking out for the best interests of SFUSD students. Providing algebra as early as seventh grade, assessing each kid in math as they go into high school, and placing each kid in the right math class is really important, and those are three steps that they can take. Also, removing the math validation test and not ever making a kid repeat any class that they’ve already taken is needed. And to be very clear, this is not a lawsuit for money. We are just asking the court to make SFUSD follow the law.
Are there any other concerns you have about the district’s education programs beyond the math program?
We have been parents in the school district for a long time, and this is not the first time that I have seen them miss the mark of putting kids’ well-being and education first. There are excellent teachers and administrators working in SFUSD every day. I am hoping they’re going to put kids first and admit they may have made a mistake in this policy. It has not done what it was intended to do, and it’s actually failed students instead.
Gisselle Medina reports on education equity in Oakland and SF, and is pursuing a master’s degree at UC Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism.