(Not Yet) Hidden Figures: Preserving Data for the Future of Education

Did you know that, in 2019, about 16 percent of that year’s high school graduates had taken calculus? I’ve committed this fact to memory, because it is one we at Just Equations reference frequently. 

The figure is important because many selective universities rely on calculus in the admissions process, even for students pursuing fields that do not require the course. 

The 16 percent figure is known thanks to a transcript study periodically conducted by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Should I forget it, I know where to look for it—at least at the time of writing. One of the motivations for this blog’s focus is the knowledge that this data source and others Just Equations has relied on may not continue to be available, given recent cuts to the U.S. Department of Education.

And even if the statistics are not hidden, they will lose relevance over time without updated data and analyses. 

The 16 percent metric, from a year after Just Equations’ founding, is now 6 years old, for example. That was a year before the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted schooling across the country. What is the status of calculus enrollment today? Has it increased or decreased? Since the U.S. government has yet to conduct another transcript study, no one knows for sure. 

Also critical for understanding educational opportunity is knowing who is or isn’t getting access to calculus. Figures 2–5 from this report, based on the transcript study, provide a wealth of information about calculus access for students in 2019. For example: 

• Among Asian American graduates, 46 percent have completed calculus, compared with 18 percent of white graduates, 9 percent of Latinx graduates, and 6 percent of Black graduates. 
• Just 4 percent of students with disabilities have taken calculus, versus 17 percent of students with no disabilities. 
• Only 3 percent of English learners have taken calculus, as opposed to 16 percent of non–English learners. 
• Access also varies by type of school: 15 percent of traditional public school graduates, 9 percent of public charter graduates, and 24 percent of private school graduates had taken calculus. 
• Income level can be estimated by looking at the percentage of students on free or reduced-price lunch. On this metric, 25 percent of students in the top quartile, 15 percent in the next quartile, and just 9 percent of students in the bottom two quartiles graduated with calculus on their transcripts.  

These data provide a stark demonstration of how mathematics coursetaking reflects opportunity. 

So does the U.S. Department of Education’s Civil Rights Data Collection, which tells us that only 35 percent of high schools with high enrollment of Black and/or Latinx students offered calculus in 2020–21, compared with 53 percent of schools with low enrollment of Black and/or Latinx students. That 35 percent represents a decline from the 38 percent of high schools with high enrollment of Black and/or Latino students recorded in the 2015–16 collection. It would help to know whether the decrease was a function of the pandemic, a question that additional research could help answer. 

Either way, the racial disparities in calculus coursetaking surpass those in any of the other science and math courses measured in both studies. For example, in 2020–21, there was a narrower, 2 percentage point gap between the two types of schools in Algebra I coursetaking and a 5 percentage point gap in Algebra II coursetaking. But those measures are just snapshots of graduates: They tell us whether students take those courses, but not when. 

The timing of students’ algebra coursetaking is a key factor in their access to advanced math courses such as calculus. Patterns of eighth grade Algebra I enrollment are predictive of calculus access. Data posted at this link at the time of writing reveal that 40 percent of Asian American students, 27 percent of White students, 20 percent of Latinx students, and 16 percent of Black students took Algebra I in middle school during 2020–21. 

Our readers, many of whom work on initiatives designed to increase equitable access to math opportunity and education more generally, know that access to this type of data is essential to understanding the condition of education and taking steps to improve it. 

Yet, with the U.S. government dismantling many of the statistical functions of the Department of Education, it seems unlikely that we will get new information any time soon. One of NAEP’s tests of 17-year-olds, which hasn’t been conducted since 2012, was just canceled by the Department of Education. It is hard to imagine that NAEP’s transcript study will continue. And, unless a lawsuit is successful in restoring the Office of Civil Rights, it is unlikely that its Civil Rights Data Collection will resume operating. 

For now, most of these data sources are available. Just Equations has downloaded some that are especially important to us, and other entities are engaged in broader efforts to download key datasets. 

Even if this critical education information remains on public websites, it will become less and less relevant over time unless new data are collected, analyzed, and shared publicly. The imperative of ensuring a quality education to all U.S. children requires a commitment to transparency and insight. We cannot afford to let data about educational outcomes become hidden figures.