California Mathematics Framework: Working Against Equity?

Much of the current rhetoric around public schooling is politicized: the debate over mask mandates, the ongoing question of standardized testing, critical race theory.  One school subject that has traditionally been regarded as unbiased and objective is mathematics, but that is no longer the case.  Recently, the state of California proposed changes to its math curriculum for middle- and high-schoolers. In this proposal, called the California Mathematics Framework, Algebra I is pushed from middle school to ninth grade, and advanced courses like Calculus are optional rather than the default.  In their place is an increased focus on courses such as data science, which are not included in the Common Core State Standards at present.  Schools are not required to implement the changes outlined in the proposal, but if enacted widely, they could potentially exacerbate rather than resolve issues of educational equity.

The proposal has already received some pushback.  A letter signed by hundreds of distinguished STEM professionals states, “Far from being deliberately held back, all students should have the opportunity to be nurtured and challenged to fulfill their potential…This is not only for their own benefit but also for society and the nation’s economic competitiveness.”  Implementing this policy in California may create changes extending beyond the classroom.  The very purpose of public education is to prepare our nation’s young learners to think critically, problem solve, and through math instruction, garner an analytical lens through which to process the world.  Should California’s proposed policy fail to instill these skills in their students, they could alienate our nation’s future leaders from STEM careers in a state that is the home of some of the world’s foremost tech companies.

The letter also claims that de-emphasizing advanced mathematics courses, like Calculus, in favor of more trendy data science courses has the potential to “cause lasting damage to STEM education in the country and exacerbate inequality by diminishing access to the skills needed for social mobility.”  If a robust math education is unavailable to disadvantaged students who have the potential to excel, then the state of California is doing its students a disservice.  It is true that students have varying levels of math abilities and aptitudes, but curricula should target each level to intellectually stimulate all students and prepare them for college STEM courses.  Opting for data science over Calculus is illogical; much of data science relies on foundations of Calculus, so legislators are not setting up students for success with this new proposed framework.  Additionally, there is a significant gap in difficulty between high school Calculus and data science courses; one is not a clear replacement for the other, so the traditional sequence should remain in place.

Glenn Loury, economist and professor at Brown University, commented on the proposal: “We shouldn’t punish the kids who are capable of it on behalf of a faux-egalitarianism that levels everything down to mediocrity, instead of letting those who have the ability and the interest to show their mettle.”  Reducing accelerated classes with the goal of educational equity automatically assumes that disadvantaged students would not be the ones placed into accelerated courses, which is counterintuitive to the goal of equity.  It removes the potential for meritocracy, thereby restricting high-performing students from accessing higher-level content.  Removing the opportunity for minority or low-income students to excel in a course where they very much have the potential to do so not only hinders their ability to master sophisticated material at a high level before matriculating to college, but can also have detrimental effects on their overall attitude towards school.

Loury further posits: “The intellectual vigor that comes out of the mastery of something that’s difficult and you apply yourself to it and you get command of it and then you get to use it, and you use it to solve problems that you never could have even thought of before – this is liberating!  This is empowering.  It’s horrible that this would be denied to the kids who are capable of it.”  If students are neither challenged nor recognized as having strong academic potentials, they might be less inclined to work as hard as they would if they had the chance to take rigorous math courses that would have prepared them for college majors and careers in STEM.

While this proposal’s goal of reducing the achievement gap for minority and low-income students is well-intended, other approaches to reforming the math curriculum could be more effective.  This is an opportunity to ensure all students, regardless of background or race, are being properly placed into sufficiently challenging courses, and to implement more culturally responsive pedagogy in math curricula.  It is important that students of all races and backgrounds see themselves represented in what they are learning in school.  Additionally, the building blocks of such pedagogy provide students with the skills to advocate for themselves and ensure they feel safe, seen, and included in a classroom.  Culturally relevant pedagogy should then, too, equip students with the hard skills necessary to excel in both higher education and the job market.  Without a foundational math skillset, students are unlikely to be successful in an introductory Economics or Business course in college, which undermines any progress currently being made towards racial equity achieved through education.

While the California Mathematics Framework signals a move towards resolving national educational disparities in curricula across racial and income divides, California must be conscious of retaining its students’ competitiveness relative to students in other states and nations.  This can only be accomplished by challenging students and providing them the opportunity to excel.  California should rebuke the Framework in favor of a proposal that prioritizes culturally relevant pedagogy to continue ensuring students of all backgrounds can succeed.