Implementation From Both Sides: A Look Into a Joint K-12 and Postsecondary Math Reform

Author: Kathleen Almy

I’ve often said that if life was a Venn diagram, you would find me in the overlap. For better or worse, I’m the person who usually has ties into both sides of an issue, initiative, or situation. 

There’s no better example of this than the work I’ve been a part of for years related to reducing the number of high school graduates who need college remediation in math. As math faculty at a college for many years, I helped local high schools develop new courses called transitional math courses. They often mimicked existing college developmental courses but would also provide the student some benefit with placement. How students earned the placement and where it could be used varied. At the time, I shared my colleague’s concerns of adequate student preparation. We were hesitant about course quality and placement from it instead of a placement test. We wanted to be extra vigilant so that students did not enter college classes unprepared.

“We, as college faculty, had been working so hard to make sure students didn’t enroll in a class they couldn’t pass that we inadvertently set up an entrance system that was almost impenetrable for most.”

I understand this perspective since I once had it, but over time, after working with hundreds of high schools and reading a lot of research, my position shifted. Yes, students should be prepared. But thinking that one test can determine the level of preparation accurately gives it too much credit. Seeing John Hetts speaking about letting Icarus fly and all the data he had on student outcomes based on high school GPA instead of standardized tests disrupted my assumptions. That is, we, as college faculty, had been working so hard to make sure students didn’t enroll in a class they couldn’t pass that we inadvertently set up an entrance system that was almost impenetrable for most.

Realistically, what was the worst that could happen to a student when using a course or GPA to place them? The student is unprepared? While that used to compel me, it no longer does. If they’re not prepared, we can help them in the course or move them to a lower course. If the error is the other direction, with students who can be successful starting in courses too low, the worst that can happen is harm. It can come in the form of students feeling inadequate but also many don’t finish math or college. 

And realistically, we’re being naive if we think unprepared students can only come from a high school. They come from many directions, including other college classes, often for reasons that don’t relate to the prior teacher or course at all. We need to be cautious placing blame anywhere. These issues are too complex to have a single, simple source.

To read more about the work that Illinois ventured into at scale with transitional math and the role I played on both sides of it, take a look at a recent blog article I wrote for the Center for the Analysis of Postsecondary Readiness. It shares the real parts of making change, both at the state level and at the school level.  

Do you want to learn more about how Illinois implements transitional math to see if it could work for your school or state? Take a look at this video for more information and reach out to us if you would like to get started with transitional math at your school.

Ready To Jumpstart Your Math Redesign Momentum?

Create effective, equitable & quantifiable change in your math program built on the good work you've already done