Discover more from Schooling Delaware Newsletter
Open Letter on K-12 Mathematics
California Academics Warn Woke Math Curriculum ‘Will Do Lasting Damage’
An open letter from more than 1,200 California academics and teachers is protesting the state’s proposed K-12 math curriculum, which the signatories state amounts to “an endless river of new pedagogical fads that effectively distort and displace actual math.”
The academics observe California’s proposed K-12 framework:
Promotes fringe teaching methods such as “trauma-informed pedagogy.” [ch. 2, p. 16]
Distracts from actual mathematics by having teachers insert “environmental and social justice” into the math curriculum. [ch. 1, p. 35]
Distracts from actual mathematics by assigning students—as schoolwork—tasks it says will solve “problems that result in social inequalities.” [ch. 7, p. 29]
Urges teachers to take a “justice-oriented perspective at any grade level, K–12” and explicitly rejects the idea that mathematics itself is a “neutral discipline.” [ch. 2, p. 29]
“Reject[s] ideas of natural gifts and talents” and discourages accelerating talented mathematics students. [ch. 1, p. 8]
The Open Letter:
We write to express our alarm over recent trends in K-12 mathematics education in the United States. All of us have first-hand experience of the role that clear mathematical thinking has played in advancing information technology and American economic competitiveness. We all also share the urgent concern that the benefits of a robust mathematical education, and the career opportunities it opens up, should be shared more widely between students of all backgrounds, regardless of race, gender, and economic status. We fully agree that mathematics education “should not be a gatekeeper but a launchpad.”
However, we are deeply concerned about the unintended consequences of recent well-intentioned approaches to reform mathematics education, particularly the California Mathematics Framework (CMF). Such frameworks aim to reduce achievement gaps by limiting the availability of advanced mathematical courses to middle schoolers and beginning high schoolers. While such reforms superficially seem “successful” at reducing disparities at the high school level, they are merely “kicking the can” to college. While it is possible to succeed in STEM at college without taking advanced courses in high school, it is more challenging. College students who need to spend their early years taking introductory math courses may require more time to graduate. They may need to give up other opportunities and are more likely to struggle academically. Such a reform would disadvantage K-12 public school students in the United States compared with their international and private-school peers. It may lead to a de facto privatization of advanced mathematics K-12 education and disproportionately harm students with fewer resources.
Another deeply worrisome trend is devaluing essential mathematical tools such as calculus and algebra in favor of seemingly more modern “data science.” As STEM professionals and educators we should be sympathetic to this approach, and yet, we reject it wholeheartedly. The ability to gather and analyze massive amounts of data is indeed transforming our society. But “data science” - computer science, statistics, and artificial intelligence - is built on the foundations of algebra, calculus, and logical thinking. While these mathematical fields are centuries old and sometimes more, they are arguably even more critical for today’s grand challenges than in the Sputnik era.
We call on national, state, and local governments to involve college-level STEM educators and STEM professionals in the design of K-12 mathematics and science education curriculum, set the following as explicit goals, and allocate resources to help school districts meet these goals:
1. All students, regardless of background, have access to a math curriculum with precision and rigor, and that would enable them to pursue STEM degrees and careers if they so choose.
2. 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.
3. There cannot be a “one size fits all” approach to K-12 mathematical education. Students should be offered multiple pathways and timelines to explore mathematics. But one of these pathways should be the option to obtain the fundamental preparation for college-level STEM, including algebra, calculus, and logical reasoning. Students should have the opportunity to take those classes at varying grade levels of middle and high school when they are ready, so that they acquire the tools to explore other STEM options and can build their proficiency in a balanced pacing, avoiding irresponsible compression late in high school.
Mathematical education is a challenging enterprise, and we have the utmost respect for our K-12 colleagues who are doing this hard work. In appreciation of the difficulty, we believe that changes to educational standards should be approached with care, using incremental experimentation building on lessons learned from both the US and abroad and using credible measures of success. In contrast, initiatives like the CMF propose drastic changes based on scant and inconclusive evidence. Subjecting the children of our largest state to such an experiment is the height of irresponsibility.
Finally, K-12 math curriculum development cannot be disconnected from one of its most important end goals: Preparing students for success in college-level STEM education and a STEM career. As educators in public and private institutions, and working professionals in the technology industry, we have a first-hand understanding of the skills needed for this goal. While the US K-12 system has much to improve, the current trends will instead take us further back. Reducing access to advanced mathematics and elevating trendy but shallow courses over foundational skills would cause lasting damage to STEM education in the country and exacerbate inequality by diminishing access to the skills needed for social mobility.
1 + 1 = 2