California Math Framework
Every 7 years or so, the California Department of Education publishes a new curriculum framework to guide California’s public school teachers in implementing California’s content standards. The 2022 proposal calls for common math courses through 10th grade. Critically, this involves removing Algebra I (or the equivalent) from the middle school curriculum and universally delaying it to 9th grade, which makes it impossible for high school students to take calculus without external courses or “doubling-up” in later grades. Given that the framework’s authors generally oppose accelerated coursework (criticizing both the idea of “mathematical talent” and expressing high levels of concern about students “rushing to calculus” without mastering the fundamentals), this approach amounts to a de facto removal of calculus from the public school curriculum. The framework rationalizes this by generally de-emphasizing calculus, referring to it as a relic of the “Sputnik era,” and calling for an alternate calculus-free “data science pathway,” despite near-universal agreement from universities and practicing data scientists that calculus is a critical part of a data science education.
The latest revision can be found here. The debate about the California Math Framework is described in these New York Times articles:
Should California De-Track Math?
California Tries to Close the Gap in Math, but Sets Off a Backlash
There have been a number of highly detailed critical responses to the 2022 proposal. The most prominent critic of the framework is perhaps mathematician Brian Conrad, who is Director of Undergraduate Math Education at Stanford. Conrad authored a number of distinct critiques, including the following:
Citation Misrepresentation in the California Math Framework
When I read the new CMF posted in mid-March, I encountered a lot of assertions that were hard to believe and were justified via citations to other papers. So I read those other papers. To my astonishment, in essentially all cases, the papers were seriously misrepresented in the CMF. Some papers even had conclusions opposite to what was said in the CMF… My grade for the CMF’s accurate representation of the cited literature is F.
Data Science in the California Math Framework
Chapter 5… promotes a bias toward data science relative to other areas of high school math, based on misinformation and hype.
Some other criticisms can be found here:
Open Letter on K-12 Mathematics
Boaz Barak, a computer science professor at Harvard and one of the contact people on the “Open Letter on K-12 Mathematics,” has a personal FAQ on the math education controversies.
Tom Loveless: California’s New Math Framework Doesn’t Add Up
San Francisco adopted the “common math pathways through 10th grade” approach in 2014 and the first draft of the California Math Framework highlighted it as a template for future detracking efforts. However, available data indicates that racial achievement gaps actually increased in the years following detracking. References to San Francisco have been removed from the most recent revision of the framework.
San Francisco’s Detracking Experiment (2014-2022)
SFUSD’s delay of algebra 1 has created a nightmare of workarounds
OPINION: How San Francisco public schools got math instruction wrong
UPDATE: The California Math Framework was adopted by the State Board of Education. California Adopts Controversial Changes to Math Education
Brian Conrad: California’s Math Misadventure Is About to Go National