Brookings report overreaches for its conclusions

Contact: Carol Corbett Burris, (516) 599-0839; (email) burriscarol@gmail.com
Kevin Welner, (303) 492-8370; (email) kevin.welner@gmail.com

TEMPE, Ariz and BOULDER, Colo. (Oct. 14, 2008) -- A recent Brookings Institution report concludes that as more students are placed in 8th-grade algebra classes, too many are ill-prepared and are dragging down their higher-achieving peers. A new review of the report, however, finds that its analysis provides little or no support for its headline-making conclusions.

The report "The Misplaced Math Student: Lost in Eighth-Grade Algebra" was written by Tom Loveless for Brookings. It was reviewed for The Think Tank Review Project by Dr. Carol Corbett Burris, who is a researcher and the principal of a New York school with a successful accelerated mathematics program.

At the time of its publication, the Brookings report received positive press coverage in multiple media outlets, including USA Today, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, Education Week, and the Associated Press. None of these newspapers probed the report's weaknesses, as set forth in the new Burris review.

Enrollment in 8th-grade algebra is on the rise. Based on analysis of math scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the Brookings report contends that, as a result of a misguided national push, as many as 28% of such algebra students are low achievers, lacking prerequisite skills in arithmetic. It further contends that this unpreparedness harms those students and that their presence may weaken the instructional opportunities of highly proficient students. The report recommends that algebra placement be based on student readiness, not grade level.

Specifically, the Brookings report finds no relationship between the percentage of students taking algebra in eighth grade and that state's scores on the NAEP and therefore no pattern of higher scores in states where a higher proportion of students take advanced math in eighth grade. Because no correlation exists, the report reasons that there is no benefit to the policy. Similarly, the report finds that as the proportion of students taking algebra in eighth grade has increased, there has been a slight decrease in the average NAEP scores of students in those advanced math classes. The conclusion drawn from this is that well-prepared students in advanced math classes learn less due to the presence of lower achievers in the class.

In her review, Burris faults the report for scanty reference to prior research and the omission of "the key empirical studies that prompted the call for algebra for all students in the 8th grade" as well any reference to the existing, peer-reviewed studies "that indicate that lower achievers in mathematics learn more when they are in challenging classes with higher achieving peers." Moreover, she writes, the report ignores plausible alternative interpretations of the data.

But the biggest flaw, the review says, is the report's methodology. Although the report itself acknowledges that its correlational findings should not be used to argue that causal relationships have been found, it then continues on to do just that. In reality, the data analyses presented in the report simply cannot support its policy conclusions. The correlations tell us almost nothing about the policy questions the report attempts to answer.

Burris concludes her review with a short summary of a peer-reviewed, longitudinal study examining the effects of an accelerated middle-school mathematics curriculum enrolling all 8th grade students in algebra in the diverse suburban district where she now serves as a principal. The study, which she helped conduct, found that students of all races and income groups enrolled in the accelerated program demonstrated greater success on a variety of achievement measures.

While Burris commends the Brookings report's call for more research and for doing more to adequately prepare students to learn algebra, she criticizes its final conclusion--that universal 8th grade algebra is ill-advised--as "not substantiated by the data presented."

Declining NAEP math scores that provide the impetus for the Brookings recommendations may have several explanations, including poverty and inexperienced teachers, Burris observes. But, she concludes, "These problems will not be solved, however, by undermining the goal of algebra for 8th graders, but rather by focusing on how to best prepare all students to succeed at that goal. The focus should be on how we improve learning in grades K-7."

CONTACT:
Carol Corbett Burris
(516) 599-0839
burriscarol@gmail.com

Kevin Welner, Professor and Director
Education and the Public Interest Center
University of Colorado at Boulder
(303) 492-8370
kevin.welner@gmail.com

About the Think Tank Review Project

The Think Tank Review Project (http://thinktankreview.org), a collaborative project of the ASU Education Policy Research Unit (EPRU) and CU-Boulder's Education and the Public Interest Center (EPIC), provides the public, policy makers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice.

Kevin Welner, the project co-director, explains that the project is needed because, "despite their garnering of media attention and their influence with many policy makers, reports released by private think tanks vary tremendously in their quality. Many think tank reports are little more than ideological argumentation dressed up as research. Many others include flaws that would likely have been identified and addressed through the peer review process. We believe that the media, policy makers, and the public will greatly benefit from having qualified social scientists provide reviews of these documents in a timely fashion." He adds, "we don't consider our reviews to be the final word, nor is our goal to stop think tanks' contributions to a public dialogue. That dialogue is, in fact, what we value the most. The best ideas come about through rigorous critique and debate."

**********

###

The Education and the Public Interest Center (EPIC) at the University of Colorado at Boulder and the Education Policy Research Unit (EPRU) at Arizona State University collaborate to produce policy briefs and think tank reviews. Our goal is to promote well-informed democratic deliberation about education policy by providing academic as well as non-academic audiences with useful information and high quality analyses.

Visit EPIC and EPRU at http://www.educationanalysis.org/

EPIC and EPRU are members of the Education Policy Alliance

(http://educationpolicyalliance.org).

###

**********