Algebra Failure Rates and a Scheduling Bind
You are principal of Fairmont High School, which serves 1,180 students. Last year, 38% of 9th graders failed Algebra I; failure rates were 51% for Black males and 44% for students with disabilities, compared with 27% for white students. The master schedule places 60% of 9th graders in a double-block algebra course, but the remaining 40% are in a single period. Two of the six algebra teachers are long-term substitutes; the department chair, a 25-year veteran, says 'the problem is that kids come in without basic skills' and resists common formative assessments. The district has mandated a new algebra curriculum for next year and will provide two days of training. Your data team meets monthly but reviews only end-of-unit tests. You have $22,000 in school improvement funds and a May 1 deadline to submit next year's master schedule. The PTA has offered volunteers for after-school tutoring, but the union contract limits volunteer supervision to certified staff.
1. What 30-, 60-, and 90-day actions would you take to reduce Algebra I failure rates this year while building capacity for the new curriculum?
Read the worked answer
I would start with the students currently failing, not with the department chair's explanation. In the first 30 days, I would pull the last two years of Algebra I grades, attendance, and formative quiz data by teacher and student group, and identify the 9th graders with two or more risk indicators. I would create a 30-minute advisory/intervention block three days a week for targeted reteaching, staffed by certified teachers, and use the $22,000 for stipends or release time rather than unsupervised volunteers. I would ask the two long-term substitutes what they need and pair them with a strong algebra teacher for common planning. In the first 60 days, I would introduce a common formative assessment every two weeks, not as a compliance tool but as a way for teachers to compare student work and adjust instruction. In the first 90 days, I would bring the department chair into a data meeting with real student work and ask the team to test one change-such as structured warm-ups on prerequisite skills-for six weeks. I would monitor failure rates by group monthly and report to staff. The reasoning: the new curriculum will not fix failure by itself; students need immediate, evidence-based support, and teachers need safe practice with data before the mandate arrives.
2. How would you redesign the master schedule and staffing plan for next year to improve equitable access and support the mandated curriculum, given the two substitute vacancies and the May 1 deadline?
Read the worked answer
For next year, I would use the May 1 deadline to force an explicit equity decision. I would analyze which 9th graders are in the single-period algebra and whether those students are disproportionately from the failing groups; if so, I would prioritize double-block placement for students with the highest risk, not just those who volunteer. I would also check whether double-block can be staffed: with two substitute vacancies, I would ask HR to recruit early, consider a retired-teacher pool, and protect common planning time for the algebra team. I would schedule the new curriculum's two training days before school starts and add follow-up coaching in the first six weeks. I would not eliminate the double block to save money if the data show it helps, but I would also not expand it without evidence. I would present the tradeoffs to the leadership team and PTA: smaller elective choices versus more algebra time. Finally, I would build in a fall review so the schedule can be adjusted if failure rates do not move. The reasoning: a master schedule is a resource-allocation document; it either widens or narrows opportunity, and the principal must be able to explain which values it reflects.