When I made the decision to read California’s 1,000-page proposal to transform math education in public schools, I quickly realized that even unproven ideas could become official instructional policies. In 2021, the state released a draft of the California Mathematics Framework (CMF), which aimed to provide new opportunities in science and tech careers for students who might otherwise be left behind. However, as I reviewed the CMF, I found some questionable features. For example, the draft promoted the San Francisco Unified School District’s policy of removing Algebra I from middle school, with the belief that teaching it only in high school would create equal opportunities for all students. The document also assumed that adjusting the math curriculum’s content and timing, instead of improving the effectiveness of teaching the existing one, would bridge the achievement gaps among different demographic groups. Unfortunately, the massive size of the document discouraged thorough public scrutiny.
As a professional mathematician who grew up attending public schools in a middle-class New York community and the son of a high-school math teacher, I felt compelled to read the entire revised math framework when it was released last year. My experience reading the CMF was filled with disbelief at times. The document referenced research that had not undergone peer review, used small and narrowly focused studies or unrelated research to support sweeping generalizations, and misinterpreted some papers to support arguments that were contrary to their actual conclusions.
The CMF made a concerted effort to convince readers that it was grounded in serious neuroscience research. It cited two articles in the first chapter to suggest that “the highest achieving people have more interconnected brains,” implying a connection to learning math. However, neither paper mentioned math education. While the CMF is intended to guide local districts, it inevitably influences their decisions on what and how to teach. Unfortunately, the version approved by the State Board of Education is likely to distort math instruction for years to come. California is promoting an approach to math education using trendy buzzwords and false promises of equity, but in reality, it is reducing opportunities for disadvantaged students within the state and anywhere else educators follow its lead.
Temple Grandin, a well-known advocate for autism and animal behavior, has expressed her opposition to algebra. From my position at Stanford, I have heard from people nationwide about the math skills required to pursue various degrees and succeed in different careers. A strong foundation in math, typically including two years of algebra, a year of geometry, and additional coursework leading up to calculus, is a prerequisite for a four-year college degree in fields such as data science, computer science, and economics. These degrees open doors not only in the sciences and Silicon Valley but also in seemingly unrelated industries. For example, a data scientist responsible for making decisions about food storage, freezing, and transportation once told me that fluency in college-level math was essential to his work.
However, California is indirectly moving away from this type of math education. The CMF promotes relatively new courses labeled as “data science” as an alternative to a second year of algebra while providing entry points into rapidly growing career fields. But this name is misleading. In industry and higher education, data science encompasses a combination of computer science, mathematics, and statistics used to extract insights from large datasets. It has applications in various industries, including healthcare, retail, and food logistics. Actual data science requires mastery of fundamental math skills that have been taught for centuries. The widely taught high-school data science classes, often referred to as data literacy, were developed by UCLA’s statistics department and my own university. While schools should teach students enough about statistics and data to navigate the world, data literacy is not data science.
Supporters of these new courses argue that they improve outcomes for traditionally underrepresented groups, such as girls and students of color. However, we must acknowledge the downstream effects. By steering sophomores and juniors away from Algebra II, we limit their access to careers in certain quantitative fields that are experiencing significant growth. This seems counterproductive to promoting equity. In Europe and Asia, students are divided into different career paths early in their education, but the American system aims to keep options open. Despite this, the CMF portrays diverting students from advanced math as progress. Increasing diversity in STEM fields requires robust math classes, not diluted ones.
Ultimately, I ended up submitting a 170-page document highlighting the extensive flaws I found in the CMF draft. I was not alone in my critique. A multiracial national coalition of over 1,700 quantitative experts from academia and industry raised strong objections to the early drafts. Faculty from the University of California and California State University systems wrote letters cautioning against prematurely diverting students from math-intensive academic and career paths. The UC system initially permitted data literacy courses to fulfill Algebra II admission requirements but reversed this policy after a unanimous vote by a faculty working group representing all campuses.
Before the State Board of Education approved the third version of the CMF in July, officials made some attempts to address its flaws. In response to criticism regarding the San Francisco Unified School District’s policy against offering Algebra I in middle school, the document removed explicit references to the policy but still endorsed the underlying ideas. Unfortunately, these ideas are spreading to other states. For example, Ohio has touted alternative math “pathways” for high school students as providing access to appealing and lucrative careers. However, the pathways labeled for data science and computer science remove many Algebra II skills, rendering them inadequate for students pursuing college degrees in those fields. Similarly, school officials in Middletown, Connecticut, have proposed revamping the traditional calculus track by reducing preparation for eighth-grade Algebra I and condensing three years of instruction into two with combined algebra-and-geometry courses.
Not every state has the necessary expertise and opposition from academic experts and tech professionals to push back against inferior math education rebranded as innovation. The students who rely on public schools are the ones most affected when districts adopt policies that undermine their educational opportunities. It is crucial that we advocate for rigorous and comprehensive math education that prepares all students for diverse career paths.
Denial of responsibility! Vigour Times is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
