Creative Education
2013. Vol.4, No.8, 521-527
Published Online August 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ce) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2013.48076
Tested In and Placed In: Are Sixth-Grade Boys and Girls
Completing Early Challenge Math Coursework before They Are
Ready?
David C. Hemphill1, John W. Hill2
1Millard Public Schools, Omaha, USA
2Univertsity of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, USA
Received June 9th, 2013; revised July 9th, 2013; accepted July 16th, 2013
Copyright © 2013 David C. Hemphill, John W. Hill. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the algebra readiness outcomes of randomly selected sixth
grade boys (n = 15) and girls (n = 15) who tested into and completed early challenge math coursework
compared to the algebra readiness outcomes of randomly selected same school sixth grade boys (n = 15)
and girls (n = 15) who tested below the admission threshold but were placed into and completed early
challenge math coursework based on teachers’ recommendations to determine if these students, both
tested in and placed in, were enrolled into higher-level math courses before they were ready—a growing
concern nationwide. Orleans Hanna Algebra Prognosis Test scores were analyzed using dependent t tests
to determine sixth-grade pretest-posttest within group progress and Orleans Hanna Algebra Prognosis
Test scores were analyzed using Analysis of Covariance for between group statistical comparison across
gender and placement conditions to determine rate of test score improvement. Between group challenge
math end of sixth-grade report card grade scores were analyzed using Analysis of Variance, also across
gender and placement conditions. Taken all together the study test scores and grade results clearly indi-
cate that boys and girls whether tested into or placed into sixth-grade challenge math coursework based
on teacher recommendations were equally prepared and ready for seventh-grade pre-algebra studies fol-
lowing a year of early challenge math. Finally, we assert that placement criteria and procedures will con-
tinue to predict student success where there are, in combination, a well-designed rigorous math curricu-
lum, committed, caring, and skilled teachers, and motivated students—making early challenge math
coursework placement the only appropriate option for students when these conditions are extant.
Keywords: Algebra Readiness; Challenge Math; Sixth Grade Students; Tested In; Placed In
Introduction
Over the past two decades there has been a push to offer al-
gebra coursework earlier and earlier to all elementary and mid-
dle school students (Dulaney, 1996; Fensterwald, 2010; Steen,
1999). Currently, the goal of algebra for all mathematics policy
in the United States is to provide early math experiences that
will prepare students for the more formal study of algebra in
high school (NCTM, 2000; Rivera, 2006). However, it is not
clear what early algebra experiences should be and whether or
not these early abstract math experiences will result in im-
proved advanced math achievement for all students (Knuth et
al., 2005; Schmidt, 2004; US Department of Education, 2008). The
push to have all middle school students complete math before
they are ready has resulted in what Bracey (2008) has referred
to as the great algebra hoax in California, where it has recently
been determined that nearly 120,000 eighth-grade students, cur-
rently taking algebra, have math ability scores measured at the
second-grade level. Algebra, as recently as the 1990s, was con-
sidered a class for gifted math students. By 2007, 31% of all
students in the eighth-grade nationally were taking algebra.
The push for accelerated algebra courses in the middle
school years is motivated, at least in part, by the results of the
math scores of students in the United States compared to stu-
dents internationally on the Trends in International Mathemat-
ics and Science Study (TIMSS, 1999). In the TIMSS report
United States students in the fourth-grade ranked 12th out of 26
nations, eighth-grade students ranked 28th out of 41 nations,
and 12-grade students ranked 19th out of 21 nations on the
math examination covering content and cognitive dimensions.
On the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA)
test completed in 2006, United States 15-year-old students’
average math score was lower than the Organization for Eco-
nomic Co-operation and Development (OECD) student average
score. United States students averaged 474 and the OECD av-
erage was 498. This placed the United States students in the
bottom quarter when compared with other participating nations
(US Department of Education, 2010).
Low scores on international measures often result in gov-
ernment mandates for sweeping reform in educational practices
often dissociated from the real-world needs and abilities of
students (Board, 2010; Guttenplan, 2010). Unfortunately, a stu-

D. C. HEMPHILL, J. W. HILL
dent who is misplaced in a more rigorous math class without
the automatic basic skills need to complete and solve more
complex problems may only learn failure (GreatSchools, 2010;
Stacey, 2009). The National Assessment of Education Progress
(NAEP) data suggests that the effort to push more kids into
algebra math classes before students are ready is an unfortunate
national trend. While lower achieving students only accounted
for 8% of the students in higher-level math classes in 2000 by
2005 the number taking higher-level math courses rose to
28.6% (Lee, Grigg, & Dion, 2007; Loveless, 2008). California
is leading the charge for algebra for all eighth-grade students.
From 2003-2008, students taking algebra increased 63%.
However, only 42% of those taking algebra scored proficient on
the state algebra test. A study found that large numbers of
eighth-grade students are retaking algebra in ninth-grade and
doing worse the second time through the course (Fensterwald,
2010).
Students who take algebra before they have a strong founda-
tion in basic math and have the mental development may find
themselves unprepared for college or the work force. Students
that are not prepared usually have to relearn math in a remedial
class later which can hurt students chances for success when
compared with students who are prepared for algebra and were
enrolled in algebra when they were ready (GreatSchools, 2010;
Steen, 1992; Steen, 1999).
Review of Literature
Algebra throughout the K-12 Curriculum
There is a real effort to include problem solving and mathe-
matical investigation into our students’ current challenge math
curriculum (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,
2002). This concerted effort to bolster our math curriculum, no
doubt comes from reports such as the Program for International
Student Assessment (PISA) as reported by the US Department
of Education (2010). In the introduction of this document, data
were given to show the United States poor performance when
compared to other nations. A closer look at that data shows that
PISA describes six mathematics literacy proficiency levels
ranging from 1 to 6, the later being the most advanced. Twenty-
seven percent of US students scored at or above level 4 (above
proficiency). This is lower than the other 32% of students in
OECD countries on average that scored at or above level 4.
According to the study level 4 students are able to complete
higher order tasks like solving problems involving visual or
spatial reasoning in unfamiliar contexts. While these results are
not terrible, what is concerning is that nearly one-quarter of
United States students scored below level 2 indicating they are
not able to consistently use basic computational skills to draw
accurate conclusions regarding problems in real-life situations
(US Department of Education, 2010).
“Algebrafying” the K-12 Curriculum
Algebra has always acted as the gateway class to all higher-
level math courses (McCoy, 2005). However, for some, algebra
is the reform gateway to K-12 math curriculum for the next
century. To some it is thought that the key to this algebra re-
form is integrating algebra across the K-12 math curriculum
(Katz, 2007; Kaput, 2000). Kaput (2000) refers to algebra in
two ways; “algebra the institution” and “algebra the web of
knowledge and skill” (p. 2). For many it is claimed that algebra
for all is the charge of this institution. As Kaput states, “But
this algebra is the disease for which it purports to be the cure!”
It is this “algebra the web of knowledge and skill” that is
needed in the math classrooms of today. When we think about
including algebra into earlier and earlier grades, it is not the
“algebra institution” we are referring too but the “algebra the
web of knowledge and skill” in which we intend to transform
mathematics curriculum (Kaput, 2000). In much of the research
that falls into math or algebra curriculum reform we find less
talk about the X’s and Y’s and more discussion of the connec-
tions, thought processes, and generalizations that can come
from studying math concepts at a deeper level. Early algebra is
an approach to educating students in the early grades that ex-
plore the deeper meanings of mathematics. It includes two foci:
(1) generalizing, identifying, expressing, and justifying math
structure, properties, and relationships and (2) reasoning and
actions based on the forms of generalizations (Katz, 2007).
According to many, early algebra is not a curriculum addition.
It is not thought to be a separate list of activities or lessons that
should be taught after the students have been taught math
computation skills. As soon as students in elementary school
are able to count and use math symbols, early algebra should be
embedded in the math lessons being taught (VanNoy, 2010). It
is also believed that early algebra is a way to bring depth of
understanding to the mathematics understanding of young chil-
dren by digging deeper into the concepts being taught so that
students can generalize relationships and properties of those
concepts. Early algebra is not a “moving to earlier grade levels”
of algebra skills that are usually taught in middle school as a
pre-algebra class. The goals of early algebra are for students to
learn to reason algebraically as they begin to acquire the ideas
behind symbolic algebraic language and explore math situa-
tions that draw on students’ mathematical knowledge in order
to reflect, build arguments, and justify new ideas (Katz, 2007).
Gender Issues and Mathematics
There has been a great deal of research over gender differ-
ences in math abilities. Much research focuses on the under-
representation of women in the area of math and science (Else-
Quest, Hyde, & Linn, 2010; Halpern et al., 2007; Hyde, Fen-
nama, & Lamon, 1990; Penner, 2008; Valentine, 1998). Scores
from the 2009 PISA show that 15-year-old boys outperformed
girl classmates by 20 points in overall math proficiency
(NASSP 2011). However, when looking at the results of the
National Assessment of Educational Progress over the last ten
years, the reported gap between boys and girls is 2% (Geist &
King, 2008). A closer look at NAEP data reveals that while
girls do equally as well as boys and have made gains in math
more recently, there is a difference in moderately complex pro-
cedures and reasoning for 13-year-olds. Boys are more profi-
cient in this area, outperforming girls, 32.6% proficient to
25.6% proficient. When comparing 17-year-olds, boys are 8.8%
proficient on multi-step problem solving and algebra compared
to girls at 5.1% (James, 2007).
Women have had great success in college. American women
receive more college degrees than men every year, a trend that
began in 1982, and continues to grow today. Even with these
successes, females score significantly lower on many high
stakes standardized tests, including the verbal and mathematics
section of both the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) and the Gra-
duate Record Examination (GRE) (Halpern et al., 2007).
522

D. C. HEMPHILL, J. W. HILL
Females also score lower on mathematics tests that do not
closely resemble the material that was taught in school, despite
earning higher grades than males in school (Halpern, 2007;
Willingham & Cole, 1997).
In a meta-analysis study of gender differences in math per-
formance it was learned that there has been gender differences
in math performance for years and that those differences are
still with us today. Conclusions around the world tend to sug-
gest simply that males outscore females on math tests. A closer
look at the research reveals that the difference is not visible in
early childhood, but becomes more prevalent during adoles-
cents. It is thought that boys are better able to handle more
complex problem solving and girls favor the less complex
computation tasks (Hyde, Fennema, & Lamon, 1990).
Biological and Social Factors in Early Mathematics
Achievement
In research there appear to be two themes that come to sur-
face as you look at gender difference in mathematics; biological
and social factors. At first glance there may not appear to be
much difference in the male and female brain, but a much
closer look is needed to notice the difference between males
and females. Through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI),
scientist, have been able to learn a great deal about the differ-
ences of the brain between genders. The cerebral cortex is
thicker on the right side in men and thicker on the left side in
women. This indicates that the thicker side of the brain is more
developed than the opposite side of the brain. The hemispheres
of a female’s brain will appear to be more identical where a
male’s brain is asymmetrical (Halpern, 2000). This difference
means that a female will process spatial abilities in both hemi-
spheres while males use one hemisphere (Penner, 2008)—a fact
evidenced in research of damaged brains by Gazzaniga, Ivry, &
Magnum (as cited in Penner, 2008). Furthermore, males with
damaged left hemispheres show a loss of verbal abilities and
damaged right hemispheres experience a loss of spatial abilities.
Females with damage to the left hemisphere see a decrease in
spatial and verbal abilities but no apparent decrease is found
with damage to the right hemisphere in females. Males have
larger inferior parietal lobes so they are better at judging speed,
estimating time, and rotating objects mentally. In fact, at very
early ages, boys perform better than girls in this area, in many
cases by close to a full standard deviation (Halpern, 2004). In a
meta-analysis study of gender differences in math, data from
the content domain of Space/Shape on the PISA, an area that
measures understanding of spatial relationships, showed boys
were slightly favored in this content area albeit with a low ef-
fect size of (d = 0.15; Else-Quest, Hyde, & Linn, 2010).
However, girls are better at retrieving information from
long-term memory and typically score better than boys on tests
of verbal learning and the creation and understanding of com-
plex prose (Halpern, 2004). Male brains seem to be more spe-
cialized overall, whereas female brains seem to be more multi-
purpose. This brain difference is apparent in elementary school
when math involves math facts, calculations, and the quick re-
trieval similar to that needed in language generation and under-
standing favor girls. In algebra, girls perform better on prob-
lems where the solution involves a process similar to those of
language processing (Gallagher, Levin, & Cahalan, 2002; Hyde,
Fennama, & Lamon, 1990).
Another area of biological difference between males and fe-
males is the developmental process. Magnetic Resonance Im-
aging and Electro Encephalograph scans of male and female
brains have given us images that show the brain of a 17-year-
old boy are equivalent to the brain of an 11-year-old girl. An-
other way of measuring brain maturation is to look at the de-
gree of myelination. Myelin, necessary for fast, clear nerve im-
pulse transmission, is a waxy material that coats the axons in
the brain. An infant will have no myelin and by adulthood the
brain will be full of the substance. Using this substance scientist
show a three to four year gap in brain development between
boys and girls. Males did not catch up to females until the age
of 29 (Gallagher et al., 2002).
We know that there are developmental difference in the
brains and bodies of our children, but research is also trying to
assess how much impact social factors play into the mathemat-
ics learning of our boys and girls. In July of 1992, a talking
Barbie hit the shelves of stores and much to the public’s dismay
uttered the phrase, “math class is tough.” According to Sax
(2010) and Geist and King (2008) research shows that girls feel
less confident in their ability to perform well on math tests
while boys often show greater confidence or over-confidence in
their abilities. Kloosterman, Tassell, Ponniah, and Essex (2008)
found that most students, seventh through 12th-grade, believed
that math is a gender-neutral domain but female students were
stronger in those beliefs than males. Boys who rated themselves
as good or excellent in math felt more strongly that math is not
a female domain. Another study showed that students’, when
asked to nominate who is best in their class in language arts and
math, named boys and girls equally in language arts, but in
math the boys nominated only boys and the girls started nomi-
nating more boys than girls from the fourth-grade on (Räty,
Kasanen, Kiiskinen, & Nykky, 2004).
Social factors are also determined by parent influence. For
example, in research by Leedy, LaLonde, and Runk in 2003 (as
cited in Geist & King, 2008) parents of sons tend to expect their
sons to learn math skills earlier than do parents of girls and as
the children get older they expect their daughters to work hard
to get good grades in math while parents of boys emphasize the
learning of math. Regardless of the gender, higher levels of
parental involvement with their children’s education equates to
higher levels of performance in mathematics (Muller, 1998).
According to a meta-analysis study by Lytton and Romney in
1991 (as cited by Halpern et al., 2007) there was no significant
difference in how parents treated males and females in encour-
aging achievement but this study did not differentiate the dif-
ferent areas of study, for example language arts or mathematics.
Furthermore, boys tend to gain more spatial experience because
they tend to be allowed to roam over a greater area than girls
who chose activities that are closer to home. This roaming of
the neighborhood allows boys to have a better spatial under-
standing of the area as represented on drawings of maps be-
tween boys and girls (Halpern et al., 2007). This influence is an
extension of the parent influence but is reinforced throughout
the neighborhood as parents in the neighborhood allow boys
more freedom to venture further from home.
Admission Standards for Early Algebra Course
Participation
Understanding biological and social factors, math curriculum,
and the readiness of students for taking algebra is important,
but of equal importance is having an effective placement proc-

D. C. HEMPHILL, J. W. HILL
ess to enroll students into the correct math courses. The place-
ment process should help place a student on a path for mathe-
matics success throughout the middle school experience and
into high school. Bracey (2008) and Loveless (2008) assert that
algebra once was a class for gifted students but now has be-
come a class that all students must take, whether they are ready
or not. For example in the research school district during the
2008-2009 school year 144 students, 43% of the total eighth-
grade population, were taking algebra as eighth-graders. There
were also 19 seventh-grade students that were taking algebra
during their seventh-grade year. In a check of enrollment num-
bers for algebra in 2005-2006, there were only 82 students tak-
ing algebra. This is a trend that appears to be growing in the
research school as well as nationally.
In this study the current method of selecting students into
challenge math used a triangulated composite score based on
the pre-sixth-grade Orleans-Hanna test score, the fourth-grade
Terra Nova math composite test score, and the school districts
math Essential Learner Outcome (ELO) test score. These three
scores are scaled to 15 points with each component sharing an
equal part in the 15 points. Students with higher scores are
placed in Challenge Math 6 and students below the cut score
are recommended for Math 6 to prepare for more challenging
math coursework in the seventh-grade. Students who scores are
35 or higher—up to 50 points—bypass the process of selection
into challenge math and are placed in pre-algebra for sixth-
grade. If students score less than 35 raw score points on the
Orleans-Hanna, then the triangulation of scores is used. If a
student is on the bubble between being placed in Math 6 or
Challenge Math, the student’s fifth-grade teacher, is contacted
by the middle school registrar in order to give his/her input on
the best math placement. This recommendation involves the
fifth-grade teacher making a decision for each student based on
the knowledge that he/she was on the bubble for placement in
Math 6 or Challenge Math 6. Fifth-grade teachers are not given
detailed Orleans-Hanna scores to assist in their placement deci-
sions.
Early Algebra Placement
It appears that over the past two decades a growing trend of
placing more and more students in algebra at earlier grades may
be becoming the norm. This relatively new norm has potentially
devastating consequences if not handled appropriately. Educa-
tors cannot take existing algebra curriculum and push it into
lower grade levels and expect that all students will be success-
ful. As previously mentioned, algebra is a gateway course. A
successful completion of algebra opens more opportunities for
students. These students are able to complete more advanced
coursework in mathematics and pursue the studies of more
advanced careers such as, engineering and the medical field.
Algebra for all is a noble educational goal, but it is not a realis-
tic goal when attempting to do so at the eighth-grade level. Not
all students are ready for the abstract thinking involved in un-
derstanding algebraic concepts. However, government officials
see algebra as the way to put the United States on top in the
global assessment race. Parents see algebra as a rigorous course
to push their child, while others see it as a key to a lucrative
career (Steen, 1999). All educators need to ask some practical
questions: First, Are all students ready for algebra? Secondly, is
our mathematics curriculum getting students ready for algebra?
And finally, what is the rush to get to algebra? The answers to
these questions are the key to providing quality, student ready
mathematics programs.
Methodology
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the algebra readi-
ness outcomes of randomly selected sixth grade boys and girls
who tested into and completed early challenge math course-
work compared to the algebra readiness outcomes of randomly
selected same school sixth grade boys and girls who tested
below the admission threshold but were placed into and com-
pleted early challenge math coursework based on teachers’
recommendations to determine if these students, both tested in
and placed in, were enrolled into higher-level math courses
before they were ready.
Student Participant Demographics
This study included a randomly selected group of students (n
= 30) who met the measured test score criteria for challenge
math placement and a randomly selected group of students (n =
30), who did not meet the measured test score criteria for chal-
lenge math placement but received challenge math based on
fifth-grade teachers’ recommendations. These students were
randomly selected from a total of 102 same school sixth-grade
students with the same placement and gender conditions. Of the
total number of selected subjects who met the measured test
score criteria for challenge math placement (N = 60), 15 (50%)
were boys and 15 (50%) were girls. Of the total number of
selected subjects who did not meet the measured test score
criteria for challenge math placement but received challenge
math based on teacher recommendation 15 (50%) were boys
and 15 (50%) were girls. Of the total number of selected sub-
jects who met the measured test score criteria for challenge
math placement (n = 30) 30 (100%) were White. Of the total
number of selected subjects who did not meet the measured test
score criteria for challenge math placement but received chal-
lenge math based on teacher or parent recommendation (n = 30)
26 (86.6%) were White, 3 (10%) were Asian, 1 (3.3%) was
African-American. The age range for all study participants was
from 10 years to 12 years.
Math Achievement Dependent M easures
The study analyzed math achievement as measured by stu-
dents’ pretest and posttest (a) Orleans Hanna Algebra Prognosis
Test scores (Ciechalski, 2005; Daubert, 2006; Kuchemann &
Secolsky, 1985; Toone, 2011) and (b) students’ final posttest
challenge math report card grade scores.
Implementation of the Independent Variables
The independent variables for this study were sixth-grade
boys and girls meeting measured test score criteria for chal-
lenge math placement compared to sixth-grade boys and girls
not meeting measured test score criteria for challenge math
placement but receiving challenge math placement based on
teacher recommendation. These groups comprise the four re-
search arms of the study. All groups of students were randomly
selected from the same student population and were in atten-
dance at the same research middle school throughout the study.
524

D. C. HEMPHILL, J. W. HILL
Research Questions
The following three research questions guided the study
comparing within group and between group algebra prognosis
test scores and between group challenge math report card grade
scores for the gender and placement conditions.
1) Do sixth-grade Boys Tested In, or sixth-grade Girls Tested
In, or sixth-grade Boys Placed In, or sixth-grade Girls Placed In
lose, maintain, or improve their end of school year pretest fifth-
grade Orleans Hanna Algebra Prognosis test scores compared
to their end of school year posttest sixth-grade Orleans Hanna
Algebra Prognosis test scores?
2) Do sixth-grade Boys Tested In, or sixth-grade Girls Tested
In, or sixth-grade Boys Placed In, or sixth-grade Girls Placed In
have congruent or different posttest end of school year sixth-
grade rate of gain or loss Orleans Hanna Algebra Prognosis test
scores?
3) Do sixth-grade Boys Tested In, or sixth-grade Girls Tested
In, or sixth-grade Boys Placed In, or sixth-grade Girls Placed In
have congruent or different posttest end of school year sixth-
grade final challenge math report card grade scores?
Assumptions and Limitations of the Study
The study has several strong features including: (a) district
wide assessment process is used for placing students in middle
school math classes, (b) the challenge math program is an es-
tablished and widely respected course option, (c) all subjects
were enrolled in the same school district during the study and
were in the same school within the district during the sixth-
grade year, (d) students placed in the challenge math class were
taught the same district math curriculum, and (e) all students
were assessed by the same standardized prognosis test. The
exploratory study was confined to sixth-grade students (N = 60)
participating in a yearlong challenge math course. The small
number of study subjects could limit the utility and generaliza-
bility of the study results and findings. Permission from the
appropriate school research personnel and University of Ne-
braska Medical Center/University of Nebraska at Omaha Joint
Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Sub-
jects approval was granted for the study before data were col-
lected and analyzed.
Results
The first pretest-posttest hypothesis was tested using the de-
pendent t test. Null hypotheses for Orleans-Hanna Algebra
Prognosis Test score improvement over time were rejected for
the end of fifth-grade pretest compared to ending sixth-grade
posttest for all four groups where Boys Tested In, pretest M =
23.20, SD = 4.89, posttest M = 38.07, SD = 6.65; t(14) = 7.13, p
< .001 (one-tailed), ES = 1.867, Girls Tested In, pretest M =
21.20, SD = 4.81, posttest M = 36.33, SD = 9.96, t(14) = 9.87, p
< .001 (one-tailed), ES = 2.686, Boys Placed In, pretest M =
18.60, SD = 4.91, posttest M = 34.80, SD = 10.04, t(14) = 6.86,
p < .001 (one-tailed), ES = 2.010, and Girls Placed In, pretest M
= 20.87, SD = 4.31, posttest M = 35.93, SD = 6.40, t(14) = 7.94,
p < .001 (one-tailed), ES = 2.099.
The second posttest-posttest hypothesis was tested using
Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with the pretest mean
scores serving as the concomitant variable and the posttest
scores as the dependent variable. The null hypothesis was not
rejected for the posttest Orleans-Hanna Algebra Prognosis Test
ANCOVA results between group comparison for Boys Tested
In, (posttest M = 38.07, SD = 6.65; ANCOVA adjusted posttest
M = 36.99), Girls Tested In (posttest M = 36.33, SD = 9.96;
ANCOVA adjusted posttest M = 36.22), Boys Placed In (post-
test M = 34.80, SD = 10.04; ANCOVA adjusted posttest M =
35.93), and Girls Placed In (posttest M = 35.93, SD = 6.40;
ANCOVA adjusted posttest M = 35.98), indicating rate of test
score improvement equipoise for all placement and gender con-
ditions where (F(3, 55) = 0.06, p = .98). Because no significant
main effect was found post hoc, contrast analyses were not con-
ducted.
The third posttest-posttest hypothesis was tested using Ana-
lysis of Variance (ANOVA). The null hypothesis was not re-
jected for the last trimester sixth-grade posttest challenge math
course grade score posttest-posttest ANOVA results be- tween
group comparison for Boys Tested In (M = 92.25, SD = 4.40),
Girls Tested In (M = 93.75, SD = 4.52), Boys Placed In (M =
91.13, SD = 5.12) and Girls Placed In (M = 93.54, SD = 3.11),
where (F(3, 56) = 1.18, p = .32). Because no significant main
effect was found post hoc, contrast analyses were not con-
ducted.
Conclusion
Based on the results the following conclusions may be drawn
from the study for each of the three research questions.
Overall Orleans-Hanna Algebra Prognosis Test posttest com-
pared to pretest mean score change across gender and place-
ment conditions, all in the direction of statistically improved
scores over time, validates gender and challenge math course-
work placement readiness for these students where Boys Tested
In posttest Orleans-Hanna Algebra Prognosis Test score of
38.07 was +14.87 points greater than pretest, Girls Tested In
posttest Orleans-Hanna Algebra Prognosis Test score of 36.33
was +15.13 points greater than pretest, Boys Placed In posttest
Orleans-Hanna Algebra Prognosis Test score of 34.80 was
+16.20 points greater than pretest, and Girls Placed In posttest
Orleans-Hanna Algebra Prognosis Test score of 35.93 was
+15.06 points greater than pretest. These scores represent an
enviable pattern of math test score improvement across time
from the end of the fifth-grade to the end of the sixth-grade for
these students across gender and placement conditions.
It is gratifying than that overall posttest compared to posttest
ANCOVA results for ending sixth-grade Orleans-Hanna Alge-
bra Prognosis Test scores for sixth-grade boys meeting meas-
ured test score criteria for challenge math placement, sixth-
grade girls meeting measured test score criteria for challenge
math placement, sixth-grade boys not meeting measured test
score criteria for challenge math placement but placed into
challenge math based on teacher recommendation, and sixth-
grade girls not meeting measured test score criteria for chal-
lenge math placement but placed into challenge math based on
teacher recommendation were found to be congruent indicating
rate of test score improvement equipoise across placement and
gender conditions—again validating challenge math coursework
placement readiness for these students. Moreover, mean post-
test Orleans-Hanna Algebra Prognosis Test scores across
placement and gender conditions were measured just below or
above the research school districts cut score of 35 required for
automatic early placement into pre-algebra classes where Boys
Tested In posttest Orleans-Hanna Algebra Prognosis Test score
of 38.07 was +3.07 points above the cut score, Girls Tested In

D. C. HEMPHILL, J. W. HILL
posttest Orleans-Hanna Algebra Prognosis Test score of 36.33
was +1.33 points above the cut score, Boys Placed In posttest
Orleans-Hanna Algebra Prognosis Test score of 34.80 was
−0.20 points below the cut score, and Girls Placed In posttest
Orleans-Hanna Algebra Prognosis Test score of 35.93 was
+0.93 points above the cut score.
Finally, converting the posttest-posttest between group ana-
lysis of variance last trimester sixth-grade posttest challenge
math classroom performance results into grade nomenclature
helps put these students’ results in perspective where sixth-
grade boys meeting measured test score criteria for placement
into challenge math mean score result of 92.25, was the equi-
valent of a grade of “B” or excellent math class performance,
sixth-grade girls meeting measured test score criteria for place-
ment into challenge math mean score of 93.75, was the equiva-
lent of a grade of “A” or outstanding math class performance,
sixth-grade boys not meeting measured test score criteria placed
into challenge math based on teacher recommendation mean
score of 91.13, was the equivalent of a grade of “B” or excel-
lent math class performance, and sixth-grade girls not meeting
measured test score criteria placed into challenge math based
on teacher recommendation mean score of 93.54, was the
equivalent of a grade of a “A” or outstanding math class per-
formance. This overall excellent to outstanding classroom per-
formance is consistent with the significant within group posttest
compared to pretest score improvement found in the first re-
search question and the rate of test score improvement equi-
poise noted in the second research question analysis. Further-
more, as with the second analysis no statistically significant
variance was found between students regardless of placement
and gender conditions. Taken all together the study test scores
and grade results clearly indicate that whether tested in or
placed in to challenge math coursework based on teacher re-
commendations these boys and girls were equally prepared and
ready for seventh-grade pre-algebra studies following a year of
early challenge math.
Discussion
The practice used by the research school in testing and then
placing students based on the results of these tests, and in some
cases teacher recommendations, appears to be working effec-
tively based on the results of this study—that is boys and girls
were not being placed into early challenge math coursework
before they were ready. It should be noted that students who
attended the research school and were participants in this study
were mostly from higher socio-economic homes with college-
educated parents who set high educational expectations for their
children. Therefore, the study subjects were fortunate enough to
have education role models in front of them each day and were
being raised in what has been referred to as a concerted cultiva-
tion manner that implies focus on the importance of learning,
education, achievement, and service to others based on learning
success (Lareau, 2003). However, the research school district is
a member of a two county, 11 school district learning commu-
nity required by state statute to provide education to students
from families with fewer economic advantages. Studies show
that students from families with fewer economic advantages
perform less well than their peers from more socio-economi-
cally advantaged homes (Baharudin & Luster, 1998; Jeynes,
2002; Eamon, 2005; Majoribanks, 1996; Hochschild, 2003;
McNeal, 2001; Seyfried, 1998). Because the research school
district will be enrolling increasing numbers of students from
lower socio-economic circumstances in response to the eco-
nomic diversity mandate of the aforementioned 11 school dis-
trict learning community legislation it will be important that the
research school make every effort to place these students in
Challenge Math 6 classes using both test results and teacher
recommendations in consultation with the students parents.
Final Thought
Students that take challenge math in sixth-grade are on a
math track for placement in pre-algebra in seventh-grade and
then placement in algebra in eighth-grade. While all groups in
this study performed well during the sixth-grade year taking
challenge math, it is not known how these students will perform
throughout the remainder of their middle school and high
school math studies. The premise of this study is that students
are being pushed into higher-level math courses before they are
ready, therefore, additional research must be conducted to fol-
low these challenge math students who tested in to or were
placed in to early challenge math coursework based on teacher
recommendation in a longitudinal study to evaluate progress in
later math courses. Because the importance of math cannot be
overstated for all, boys and girls alike, who seek to complete
advanced education leading to careers of service to others, it is
imperative that all schools provide challenging and engaging
math instruction as a priority for all students regardless of their
current level of math ability. Finally, we assert that placement
criteria and procedures will continue to predict student success
where there are, in combination, a well-designed rigorous math
curriculum, committed, caring, and skilled teachers, and moti-
vated students—making early challenge math coursework pla-
cement the only appropriate option for students when these
conditions are extant.
REFERENCES
Baharudin, R., & Luster, T. (1998). Factors related to the quality of the
home environment and children’s achievement. Journal of Family
Issues, 19, 375-403. doi:10.1177/019251398019004002
Board, J. (2010). Criticism of public education—Inequality of oppor-
tunity, highly bureaucratic systems, achievement-based outcomes,
school choice, reform after reform.
http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2341/Public-Education-Cr
iticism.html
Bracey, G. W. (2008). The algebra hoax. Phi Delta Kappan, 90, 306-
307.
Ciechalski, J. C. (2005). Review of the Orleans-Hanna algebra prog-
nosis test (3rd ed.). Greenville, NC: Professor, East Carolina Univer-
sity.
Daubert, H. (2006). Millard investigation: Conversation with peggy
brendel. Omaha, NE: Millard Public Schools.
Dulaney, C. (1996). Should students take algebra I in middle school?
E&R Report, 96(.08), Raleigh, NC: Eye on Evaluation—Evaluation
and Research Department: Wake County Public School System.
Eamon, M. K. (2005). Social-demographic, school, neighborhood, and
parenting influences on academic achievement of Latino young ado-
lescents. Journal of Youth an d Adolescence, 34, 163-175.
doi:10.1007/s10964-005-3214-x
Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J., & Linn, M. C. (2010). Cross-national pat-
terns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 136, 103-127. doi:10.1037/a0018053
Fensterwald, J. (2010). Too many students forced to retake algebra.
Thoughts on public education: Analysis, opinions and ruminations
on California education policy. Silicon Valley Education Foundation.
526

D. C. HEMPHILL, J. W. HILL
http://toped.svefoundation.org/2010/03/24/too-many-students-forced
-to-retake-algebra/
Gallagher, A., Levin, J., & Cahalan, C. (2002). GRE research: Cogni-
tive patterns of gender differences on mathematics admissions tests
(ETS Report No. 02-19). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Geist, E. A., & King, M. (2008). Different, not better: Gender differ-
ences in mathematics learning and achievement. Journal of Instruc-
tional Psychology, 3 5 , 43-52.
GreatSchools: Involved Parents. Successful Kids (2010). Why is alge-
bra so important? Algebra is known as a gatekeeper subject, so when
should your child take it?
http://www.greatschools.org/students/academic-skills/why-algebra.gs
?content=354
Guttenplan, D. D. (2010). Western nations react to poor education re-
sults. The New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/world/europe/09education.html
Halpern, D. F. (2000). Sex differences in cognitive abilities. Mahwah,
N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Halpern, D. F. (2004). A cognitive-process taxonomy for sex differ-
ences in cognitive abilities. American Psychological Society, 13,
135-139.
Halpern, D. F., Benbow, C. P., Geary, D. C., Gur, R. C., Hyde, J. S., &
Gernsbacher, M. A. (2007). The science of sex differences in science
and mathematics. Association for Psychological Science, 8, 1-51.
Hochschild, J. L. (2003). Social class in public schools. Journal of
Social Issues, 59, 821-840. doi:10.1046/j.0022-4537.2003.00092.x
Hyde, J. S., Fennama, E., & Lamon, S. L. (1990). Gender differences in
mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,
107, 139-155. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.139
James, A. N. (2007). Gender differences and the teaching of mathemat-
ics. Inquiry, 12, 14-25.
Jeynes, W. H. (2002). Examining the effects of parental absence on the
academic achievement of adolescents: The challenge of controlling
for family income. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 23, 189-
210. doi:10.1023/A:1015790701554
Kaput, J. K. (2000). Transforming algebra from an engine of inequity
to an engine of mathematical power by “algebrafying” the K-12 cur-
riculum. Dartmouth, MA: National Center for Improving Student
Learning and Achievement in Mathematics and Science.
Katz, V. J. (2007). Algebra: Gateway to a technological future. The
Mathematical Association of America (MAA).
http://www.maa.org/algebra-report/Algebra-Gateway-Tech-Future.pdf
Kloosterman, P., Tassell, J., Ponniah, A. G., & Essex, N. K. (2008).
Perceptions of mathematics and gender. School Science and Mathe-
matics, 108, 149-162. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2008.tb17821.x
Knuth, E. J., Alibali, M. W., McNeil, N. M., Weinberg, A., & Stephens,
A. C. (2005). Middle school students’ understanding of core algebra-
ic concepts: Equivalence & Variable. International Journal on Ma-
thematics Education (ZDM), 37, 68-76. doi:10.1007/BF02655899
Kuchemann, D., & Secolsky, C. (1985). Review of the Orleans Hanna
prognosis test. In J. V. Mitchell Jr. (Ed.), The ninth mental meas-
urement yearbook (pp. 1105-1106). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of
Mental Measurement.
Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Lee, J., Grigg, W., & Dion, G. (2007). The Nation’s Report Card:
Mathematics 2007 (NCES 2007-494). Washington DC: National Cen-
ter for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, US De-
partment of Education.
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/main2007/2007494.asp#pd
flist
Loveless, T. (2008). The misplaced math student: Lost in eighth-grade
algebra. Washington DC: Brown Center on Education Policy at
Brookings.
Majoribanks, K. (1996). Family learning environments and students
outcomes: A review. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 27,
373-394.
McCoy, L. P. (2005). Effect of demographic and personal variables on
achievement in eighth-grade algebra. The Journal of Education Re-
search, 98, 131-135. doi:10.3200/JOER.98.3.131-135
McNeal, R. B. (2001). Differential effects of parental involvement on
cognitive and behavioral outcomes by socioeconomic status. Journal
of Socio-Economics, 30 , 171. doi:10.1016/S1053-5357(00)00100-1
Muller, C. (1998). Gender differences in parental involvement and ado-
lescents’ mathematics achievement. Sociology of Education, 71, 336-
356. doi:10.2307/2673174
National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) ( 2011).
Breaking down the PISA results. Newsleader, 5 8 , 1-10.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2002). Principal and
standards for scho o l mathematics.
http://standardstrial.nctm.org/document/chapter6/index.htm
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principal and
standards for scho o l mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
Penner, A. M. (2008). Gender difference in extreme mathematical
achievement: An international perspective on biological and social
factors. American Journal of Psychology, 114, S138-S170.
Räty, H., Kasanen, K., Kiiskinen, J., & Nykky, M. (2004). Learning
intelligence—Children’s choices of the best pupils in the mother
tongue and mathematics. Social Behavior and Personality, 32, 303-
312. doi:10.2224/sbp.2004.32.3.303
Sax, L. (2010). Gender differences in learning. NASSPE Research.
http://www.singlesexschools.org/research-learning.htm
Seyfried, S. F. (1998). Academic achievement of African American
preadolescents: The influence of teacher perceptions. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 381-402.
doi:10.1023/A:1022107120472
Stacey, K. (2009). Trends in mathematics education research: The
example of algebra education. [Peer commentary on the study “The
future of the teaching and learning of algebra” by Stacey, K., Chick,
H., & Kendal, M.]
http://www.hbcse.tifr.res.in/episteme/episteme-1/epiteme-1-review-p
apers/stacey
Steen, L. A. (1999). Algebra for all in eighth-grade: What’s the rush?
Middle Matters, 8, 6-7.
Steen, L. A. (1992). Does everyone need to study algebra. Mathematics
Teacher, 85, 258-260.
Toone, L. T. (2011). Orleans-hanna algebra prognosis test: Informa-
tion for students, parents, and educators. Farmington, UT: Davis
School District. http://www.davis.k12.ut.us/davis
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (1999). High-
lights from TIMSS 2007: Mathematics and science achievement of
US fourth and eighth-graders in an international context. US De-
partment of Education: National Center for Education Statistics.
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2001027
US Department of Education (2010). Highlights from PISA 2009: Per-
formance of US 15-year-old students in reading, mathematics, and
science literacy in an international context. US Department of Edu-
cation: National Center for Education Statistics
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2011004
US Department of Education (2008). Foundations for success: The
final report of the national mathematics advisory panel.
http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/report/final-repor
t.pdf
Valentine, E. F. (1998). Gender differences in learning and achieve-
ment in mathematics, science and technology and strategies for eq-
uity: A literature review. Psychological Foundations of Education for
Pre-Service Teachers. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Insti-
tute & State University.
VanNoy, T. (2010). Teaching embe d d ed a l g e b ra to young studen t s.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Teaching-Embedded-Algebra-to-Young-Stu
dents&id=4771526
Willingham, W. W., & Cole, N. S. (1997). Gender and fair assessment.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=99105978
Wu, H. (2001). What is at stake in the K-12 standards wars: A primer
for educational policy makers. The 1997 mathematics standards war
in California, New York: Peter Lang Publishers.