CA Math Reform Mired in Controversy: What APS Can Learn

Editor’s Note: This is the third in a series of articles looking at the national debate on math instruction and its potential impact on Virginia and APS.

Like Virginia, California is currently updating its Math Framework. Many of CA's proposed math reforms are controversial and have sparked public outcry. As a result, the CA State Board of Education recently postponed consideration of the Framework until 2023 to allow time for revisions. Some of the same contentious issues are likely to surface as Virginia embarks on its 2023 Math SOL revision.

Background

As part of its regular update cycle, California asked Stanford Education Professor Jo Boaler to revise the California Math Framework (CMF). This document advises local school districts on how to implement CA’s Common Core math standards. The first draft  was released in 2021 which:

• Emphasized pedagogy (how math is taught) over content;

• Created a new high school Data Science pathway as an alternative to the Algebra-Calculus pathway; and

• Proposed a range of reforms which included:

• Delaying Algebra I until 9th grade for nearly all students while using heterogenous classes and discovery/inquiry learning;

• Eliminating gifted designations which Boaler argues are inequitable and psychologically harm gifted students;

• Implementing standards-based grading and excluding homework from grades.

There was a public outcry in spring 2021 over the CMF’s call to delay Algebra I until 9th grade and eliminate gifted designations, prompting California to postpone consideration of the CMF to allow for edits. A revised draft was released in March 2022 which gave districts some wiggle room to offer 8th grade Algebra I and removed overt comments about gifted policies. Despite these concessions, there was an even larger negative response to the second CMF draft, which prompted the State Board of Education to again delay consideration of the CMF until 2023 to allow for further revisions. 

Current CMF opposition centers around three main areas:

Data Science

The biggest CMF flash point has been its call for a new high school Data Science pathway as an alternative to the Algebra-Calculus pathway. Boaler argues that the traditional high school math sequence is a relic with diminished relevance in today’s high-tech world. Toward this end, the CMF left open the possibility that students could opt to take Data Science instead of Algebra II. This unleashed a firestorm of criticism. More than 2,000 prominent STEM professionals and academics from across the US and CA (including seven Nobel winners and more than 400 CA STEM professors) signed statements opposing the CMF’s denigration of traditional math and implicit sanction of replacing Algebra II with data science. (US letter and CA letter) They note that:

• The Algebra I – Calculus pathway is the bedrock of modern math and high tech; it is more relevant today than ever. The US Letter warns against “elevating trendy but shallow courses over foundational skills”.

• Nearly all college STEM degrees require calculus so students need rigorous Algebra II and ideally Precalculus in high school if they want to obtain a quantitative degree in college.

• The high school data science pathway will preclude students from obtaining the mathematical skills needed to major in STEM in college, thus acting as an “off-ramp” from STEM which will worsen diversity in STEM fields.

Two UC Berkley STEM professors summarized the concerns in a Los Angeles Times op-ed. In addition, the University of California  & California State University  voiced concerns over the CMF’s proposed data science pathway and Stanford recently deleted “data science” from its list of high school math courses it encourages for undergraduate admission.

Critics worry that the data science pathway will lead to de facto tracking by attracting a disproportionate share of underrepresented students; some wealthy school districts have already said they will ignore CMF recommendations, while less wealthy districts appear more likely to follow the CMF. In addition, STEM professors believe the CMF’s rhetoric is misleading students into thinking that they can take Data Science in lieu of Algebra II and still pursue STEM in college, which is not the case.

We will explore the data science debate more fully in our next article.

Pedagogy

Another flash point has been the CMF’s emphasis on pedagogy and over content. The content vs pedagogy debate has been a longstanding feature of the “Math Wars”. Boaler has taken this debate to new heights with her 900+ page CMF which is dominated by “vignettes” where teachers provide testimonials about their experiences implementing reform pedagogy in their classrooms.

Many of the CMF’s recommendations are controversial:

• Former Brookings senior fellow Tom Loveless notes that the CMF is driven by its ideological commitment to a one-size-fits-all approach and by its call for discovery/inquiry learning around “big ideas” despite the fact that “inquiry methods have a century-long checkered history, particularly for struggling students in the primary grades".

• Loveless fears the CMF will negatively impact struggling students. The CMF ignored research-based best practices for teaching struggling students via teacher-directed learning and fluency practice, appearing to believe that making math more inviting and relevant will obviate the need for remediation. Loveless deems the latter strategy wishful thinking.

• Stanford Math Professor Brian Conrad states the CMF is irresponsible in downplaying the importance of fluency, noting that “teachers are kneecapping students if they do not ensure … number facts are committed to memory.”

Faulty Research Citations

Stanford’s Conrad reviewed the CMF line-by-line and discovered an astounding number of errors, citation misrepresentations, and cherrypicked data. Conrad said “The abundance of false or misleading citations I found in the CMF calls into doubt the credibility of all appeals to the literature in the CMF.”

The CMF’s citations on math acceleration provide a case in point. As per Conrad’s analysis:

• The CMF claimed that one study showed acceleration led to “significant declines in overall mathematics achievement” when the study actually showed that accelerated students did slightly better than non-accelerated students.

• While the CMF notes that many students retake calculus in college, it fails to mention that students who retake calculus in college do better than those taking calculus for the first time.

• In order to justify slowing down math acceleration, the CMF notes that prealgebra and algebra skills are more important for first-year college math courses than advanced math skills. However, the CMF omits mention that College Algebra is the most common first-year college math course so this result is not surprising. Surveys of first-year college precalculus and calculus professors do show that advanced math skills are deemed important for course success.

Conrad’s findings are a warning to other states and districts about shaping policies around Boaler’s purportedly “research-based” ideas.  

Summary

Given the avalanche of negative public comments this spring, California decided to further delay CMF consideration until 2023 to permit additional revisions.  The CMF debate provides a wealth of background information for Virginia as it prepares for its own 2023 Math SOL revision.