By Dave Kung

Editor’s Note: Part 1 of this post told an uplifting story of how Central Texas middle school math leaders saw inequitable outcomes – and did something about it.

We can learn a lot from how Central Texas leaders – with support from the E3 Alliance and the Dana Center – worked to improve their part of the mathematics education system. Here are a few of the lessons I take away – lessons that apply to nearly everyone who plays any role in the system.

Focus on Transitions. Too often we are so focused on making sure that the students in our classrooms have equitable experiences that we are oblivious to the policies and practices that already determined which students could sit in front of us. Of course students’ experiences in classrooms impact their learning trajectory – but that wasn’t the focus of this intervention. Instead, it focused on the transitions between classes.

If your institution is like most, students of color are disproportionately placed into developmental math sequences. All too often those sequences serve as graveyards for marginalized students’ dreams. Even if each course has a reasonably high pass rate, exponential attrition means that few students make it through the gauntlet to their goal course. A CCRC study of 63,000 community college students placed into a developmental sequence of at least three courses showed that just 11% ended up passing the goal course:

Data on corequisites compellingly demonstrates significantly increased chances of making it through the gateway mathematics course. Like with the change to opt-out in Texas, this innovation helps all students – but disproportionately helps students from under-served groups.

Finally, too many systems still put all students (whether they’re aiming for a STEM degree or not) on a path toward Calculus – even if statistics or quantitative reasoning would be better aligned with their needs. Who suffers most when mis-aligned requirements function as unnecessary gatekeepers? Only digging into your data will tell you for sure, but it’s likely to be the same groups of students the math community has been under-serving for decades.

Responsible Use of Disaggregated Data. Central Texas math leaders didn’t focus on this issue until they saw the data. Does your department or institution chart student success disaggregated by race and gender? Where are subpopulations falling through the cracks? Are there particular courses where gender equity gaps grow? Are there transitions that Black students are less likely to successfully traverse?

Seeing the cold hard facts, especially when they are uncomfortable (like they were in Central Texas) can help focus everyone’s attention on the part of the problem that’s within your control – and help you collectively find solutions. At St. Mary’s College of Maryland, we saw big differences (by race) in Calculus success, a common phenomenon. A fairly simple statistical linear model showed that, even when taking into account predictive variables like HS GPA and SAT Math, race was still predictive of success.

In other words, our classes were still part of the problem.

While we couldn’t go back in time and give students better high school math experiences, we could certainly make sure they had more equal opportunities to succeed in our courses. Starting a Treisman-style Emerging Scholars Program – intensive problem-solving sessions in a supportive multi-racial environment – provided a better on-ramp to STEM majors for students from groups we had historically not supported well. Nearly two decades later, there are dozens of Black and Latinx students with STEM degrees (and a few with doctoral degrees!) who came through our program. Progress is possible, but facing the cold hard data is an important first step.

Sidestepping Political Landmines. In all cases above, the improvements to deeply inequitable systems came through interventions that weren’t nearly as politically charged as race-conscious admissions. Instead, these were policies, procedures, and programs that were good for all students – but differentially good for students from marginalized groups. More high-performing Central Texas 5th graders are getting into 8th grade Algebra now, but the increases are greatest for Black and Latinx students. All groups of college students are better off in math pathways aligned with their interests, with additional support if needed – rather than going through developmental math – but the impact is larger on minoritized students.

Focusing efforts on changes that benefit students from all demographic groups allowed reformers to completely sidestep thorny political issues. They were able to implement changes that led to greater racial equity, even in places where an explicit appeal to work on issues of racial equity would have been met with fierce opposition.

Asset-minded View of Students, Deficit-Minded View of Systems. I learned early in my teaching career that taking a deficit perspective on students – focusing on their shortcomings and failures – led nowhere fast. It makes sense. To help students reach their greatest potentials, teachers have to uplift them. And nobody feels uplifted by someone who looks down on them or seems disappointed.

The reform efforts mentioned above succeeded in part because the people involved reserved the deficit perspective for the systems and kept it away from students. I’ve recruited hundreds of students into programs designed to make sure all students can succeed, “including those from groups we haven’t adequately supported in the past.” Would they have even joined a program designed to fix students who were struggling (as so many remedial programs are read by participants)? My guess is that fewer would have joined – and those who did wouldn’t have succeeded the way our students did. The psychological damage of being told (explicitly or implicitly) that you aren’t good enough is real and severe.

Changing a deeply flawed system requires efforts on many levels, including the difficult work of helping people unpack their own biases and prejudices. Let’s continue to work on that front when and where it’s possible. But let’s also learn from successes like those in Central Texas, focusing on systemic issues like the transitions that disproportionately disrupt marginalized students’ plans. Doing so allows us to work smartly in ways that are both effective and politically savvy.

​​Dr. Dave Kung has worked in the intersection of mathematics and equity for three decades. He served as the Director of Policy at the Charles A. Dana Center at The University of Texas at Austin, and as Director of  MAA Project NExT. He also works closely with K-12 and higher ed organizations, especially concentrating on equity issues in mathematics. Kung was awarded the Deborah and Franklin Tepper Haimo Award, the MAA’s highest award in college math teaching, for his work at St. Mary’s College of Maryland. He resides there, working as a consultant for a variety of organizations, as well as playing violin and running–never simultaneously, but sometimes alongside his partner and daughter.