California Math Framework Doesn’t Put Students First

On Wednesday, October 4, the United Democrats of Alameda held a conversation with Dr. Brian Conrad, Professor of Mathematics and Director of Undergraduate Math Studies at Stanford University. The evening’s discussion was focused on the California math framework and changes to California’s math curriculum for K-12 students.

^[1]

Professor Conrad grew up attending public schools and comes from a family of teachers. His father taught high school math and his brother is also a professor of mathematics in Connecticut. More than 70 people tuned in to the virtual Zoom event to hear Dr. Conrad’s perspectives and advocacy. He spoke about the California math framework (CMF) ^[2], a document of more than 1,000 pages that was recently approved by the California Department of Education. This framework guides and shapes California schools’ math curriculum and course material. (Note: The CMF is different but related to the common core standards ^[3] that outline minimum student requirements.)

Professor Conrad became interested in the CMF after hearing concerns from colleagues and peers about its proposals. After reading the framework, he publicly released a lengthy critique ^[4] of many concepts, suggested guidance, and citations used to support the framework. Since then, he has continued his advocacy ^[5] to help inform parents, caregivers, and educators about problems with the CMF and the importance of math mastery for students who want to keep their options open for quantitative college degrees.

Some of the concerns Professor Conrad highlighted in the evening’s discussion about the CMF included lack of transparency and honesty in the document, which includes the replacement of Algebra II with less rigorous—but more “friendly”—Data Science courses for high school students. His main concern with the replacement Data Science courses was that they are replacing Algebra II but do not provide the same mathematical rigor nor foundational math skills needed for students to pursue a quantitative field of study at the college level.

He also highlighted the issue of the initial CMF discouraging students from taking Algebra I in middle school and the harmful downstream impacts of reducing student opportunity. He shared the example of the San Francisco Unified School district, which did away with middle school algebra almost a decade ago. The removal of Algebra I was presented as an important driver to reduce disparities in student outcomes but has been a policy that hurts students and continues to drive families who are financially able to private schools or private tutoring while leaving disadvantaged students even further behind.

Professor Conrad expressed dissatisfaction with how the CMF proposes to increase math mastery under the guise of rigor and equity when in reality, its proposals will limit students and prevent many more from studying quantitative fields later in life. He recognized that while not all students will pursue a quantitative pathway, limiting students by removing opportunities or replacing existing courses with less rigorous material was not the right approach. He acknowledged room for improvement in the way math curricula is taught and emphasized that public school educators are doing a great service to our youth. He lamented that guidelines coming from the top are misguided and are not with the benefit of students in mind.

When asked what he thinks would help close the math achievement gap—a driving ethos behind much of the guidance provided in the CMF—Professor Conrad iterated that while he is not an expert in educational pedagogy, his perspective is that extra attention should be spent on the K-5 school years, so that by middle school, the majority of students have a strong foundation to continue building math mastery and also are given the greatest number of options for their future. He also noted that building early math literacy across all groups of students is the only option to truly grow diversity in the STEM field pipeline in college and beyond.

Professor Conrad also spoke about the importance of being informed about changes that are afoot. Without community pushback against the CMF—which included not only Professor Conrad’s public critiques but also letters, public testimony, and a formal opposition letter signed by more than 1,700 quantitative experts—it is likely that the initial draft would have been stamped by the California Department of Education.

Thanks to community pushback, the CMF draft underwent three major revisions and some critiques were addressed. He reminded parents that participation is important, especially if districts are trying to change math support for students. For parents seeking to support their students in math mastery, he noted the importance of practicing math outside of the classroom, i.e., homework, and highlighted the parallels between the practice required to master an instrument or a second language and his perspectives on mastering math concepts—mastery of any subject requires diligence and practice.

Ultimately, when asked about what has driven him to take up these potential changes to math curriculum in California, Professor Conrad spoke about his love of mathematics, teaching, and his perspective that we should be increasing the opportunity pipeline for STEM fields, not limiting them.

Felsha Tejada is a Boardmember of the United Democrats of Alameda. For more information, visit their website, United Democrats of Alameda ^[6].