Partial Math Detracking in California High Schoolks

            In this American Educational Research Journal article, Thomas Dee (Stanford University) and Elizabeth Huffaker (University of Florida) say the gatekeeper role of algebra in students’ educational and life trajectories continues to spark high-profile attention on three decisions: when students should take Algebra I, how it is taught, and the mix of students in each classroom. Tracking for Algebra I, say Dee and Huffaker, “the practice of sorting students on the basis of prior achievement or perceived ability – has long been critiqued as an inherently unequal method for distributing educational opportunities.” 

            But de-tracking middle- and high-school math classes has also been controversial, they say, surfacing “vexing tensions for any effort that simultaneously seeks to support both mathematical excellence and broad opportunity.” Many schools have struggled with the challenge of differentiating instruction in heterogeneous groups and accelerating the skills and knowledge of students who do not seem ready for algebra.

            In this article, Dee and Huffaker report on an experiment in a diverse California district (Sequoia Union) that had big proficiency gaps in math: from 2017 to 2020, more than three-quarters of white and Asian graduates met University of California math admissions criteria compared with fewer than half of African-American and Latin students. To address this disparity, the district launched the A1 Initiative: Algebra I was taught to mixed groups of ninth graders, combining on-grade-level students with students who would normally have been in remedial pre-algebra classes. Higher-achieving ninth graders, who had taken Algebra I in middle school, were not part of the initiative and took geometry or other upper-level courses.

            The A1 Initiative provided significant resources to support high-quality instruction in heterogeneous classes, while the control group in the study had business-as-usual conditions and a standard textbook: 

• 15 full days of professional development, one released class period a day, four campus coaching days per semester, a districtwide PLC, and a partner teacher on each campus;
• A strong emphasis on high expectations and growth-mindset thinking, encouraging students to pursue the trajectory toward geometry;
• Teacher collaboration on unit planning and assessments and lesson study;
• Training in language routines that promoted math academic conversations;
• Emphasis on the importance of hearing and seeing student reasoning;
• Frequent assessment of students’ skills and knowledge;
• Flexibility with day-to-day pacing of the curriculum;
• Additional lesson plan resources. 

What were the results? Dee and Huffaker report the following:

• Improvements in student attendance and retention; 
• Improvement in Algebra I achievement in the treatment group;
• Significant improvement in Algebra II achievement two years later;
• No lowering of the achievement of classroom peers. 

“These results,” conclude the authors, “suggest that higher expectations for the lowest-performing students, coupled with aligned teacher supports, is a promising model for realizing students’ mathematical potential.” 

“Accelerating Opportunity: The Effects of Instructionally Supported Detracking” by Thomas Dee and Elizabeth Huffaker in American Educational Research Journal, April 2026 (Vol. 63, #2, pp. 307-350); the authors can be reached at tdee@stanford.edu and ehuffaker@ufl.edu.

Please Note: This summary is reprinted with permission from issue #1139 of The Marshall Memo, an excellent resource for educators.