After the adoption of Common Core, California’s State Board of Education (SBE) approved a Mathematics Framework in 2013 that made Algebra I optional for 8th graders. Many local education agencies (LEA) continued to offer Algebra I to its 8th grade students, but others have followed the lead of San Francisco Unified (such as Oakland Unified).
The latest California Mathematics Framework took the Algebra I policy guidance a step further, advocating via claims of repetition in the curriculum that the usual 4 years of high school math content prior to calculus can be covered in 3 years for everyone. No state in the country has ever come up with a way to do this at scale, nor is there clear evidence that this is a realistic goal.
The guidance against offering middle school Algebra I (or Integrated Math 1), more extensive in earlier framework drafts, was heavily criticized by many quantitative experts and professors. They explained that such prohibition puts those who rely entirely on public education at a disadvantage in college admissions and in readiness to pursue quantitative 4-year college degrees. Analysis from the U.S. Department of Education Civil Rights Data Collection shows that early access to Algebra I is valuable for STEM success.
Senate Bill 1410: Math Curriculum Bill
Require that the next mathematics framework revision includes Algebra I (Or Mathematics I) offerings to all 8th Grade students.
Senate Bill 1411: Instructional Quality Commission Bill
Allowing Higher education subject matter experts to participate in K-12 curriculum development discussions so that K-12 course content better prepares students for the rigors of college-level course work.
Senate Bill 1412: The Conflict of Interest Bill
Codifies the Title V California Code of Regulations Section 9514 related to prohibited communications, bringing curriculum development conflict of interest regulations for grades 9 through 12 curriculum development into parity with the regulations that are imposed for grades K-8.
Ed Source Article w/ Public Comments:
Cal Matters, Professor Svetlana Jitomirskaya “ California’s Proposed Math Curriculum Defies Logic”:
Professor Conrad (Stanford) Op Ed:
- “Citation Gimmickry and the UC Area-C Loophole,” Professor Brian Conrad, Director of Undergraduate Studies in Math, Stanford University
- California’s Math Misadventure is about to go National
Berkeley Op Ed:
Chalk & Talk Podcast:
- Ep 11. California’s math controversy with Jelani Nelson Part I | Chalk & Talk (podbean.com)
- Ep 12. California’s math controversy with Jelani Nelson Part II | Chalk & Talk (podbean.com)
Ep 15. Modern relevance in the math curriculum with Brian Conrad | Chalk & Talk (podbean.com)
2023 Math Curriculum Chapters: Mathematics Framework - Mathematics (CA Dept of Education)
CSU Admission Mathematics Requirements
- Math (4 years recommended) of college preparatory math including or integrating topics covered in algebra, geometry, and intermediate algebra. (Freshman: Admission Requirements | CSU (calstate.edu)
CSU Math Requirements for a Pre-STEM/STEM and Other Math-Intensive Major
- Weighted math GPA 3.5 or above AND completed 12th grade-approved yearlong advanced math course with a grade of C- or better
- Weighted math GPA 3.5 or above AND five or more years of high school math or QR with a grade of C- or better
- Weighted GPA 3.7 or above (Multiple Measures for Enrollment in GE B4 (Math-STEM) | CSU Student Success)
UC Admission Mathematics Requirements
- Three years of college-preparatory mathematics that include the topics covered in elementary and advanced algebra and two- and three-dimensional geometry. (Subject requirement (A-G) | UC Admissions (universityofcalifornia.edu)
Department of Defense:
News Article on SF Unified: Why SFUSD math education is headed to March 2024 ballot | Education | sfexaminer.com
Prop G: Bring Back Algebra: Proposition G: Offering Algebra 1 to Eighth Graders | San Francisco (sf.gov)
Teacher Comment:
“The Mathematics Framework for California Public Schools is still riddled with citation errors. The authors’ claims are not supported by valid evidence.
I have been a math teacher in SFUSD for several years now. This is what I’ve seen over the past 10 years: An increased number of students are entering 9th grade without having their multiplication facts memorized, without the ability to perform operations with positive and negative integers, decimals, and fractions, without the ability to solve one-step, two-step, and multi-step equations (even with integers!), and without the ability to work independently.
This has had a catastrophically negative effect on high school mathematics.
The achievement gap has dramatically grown and so has the bipolarity within our classes. We’re now forced to differentiate our instruction over multiple years; students who are entering 9th grade with less than a 5th grade level of math competency are grouped with students who are ready for precalculus. No one is getting the time, practice, and attention they need to thrive.”
— David Zeeman
“I strongly oppose the proposed California Math Framework. I have been teaching math in California for 41 years and have a degree in mathematics.
I have carefully studied the proposed framework. It steers teachers away from using clear direct instruction and from requiring their students to master math facts and algorithms at the right stages of their mathematical development. For example, students who do not memorize their times tables by the end of 3rd grade typically struggle when they try to learn fractions in 4th grade, or decimals in 5th grade, etc. The Framework is opposed to the Common Core Standards on this point — yet the Framework is intended to help teachers implement the Common Core Standards.
The proposed framework will be particularly harmful to students whose families do not have the resources to pay for private math tutors or after-school classes to supplement their math education. Affluent families will be better positioned to seek outside help for their children to succeed in middle and high school math and prepare for STEM careers. This will widen the existing achievement gap even further.
Please reject this proposed Mathematics Framework. California’s children deserve much better.”
— Jane Molnar
Op Ed from Parent: My son’s decision to retake algebra made me rethink California’s new approach to math (desertsun.com)
“I am a mom of 2 kids. One is in middle school and another is going to college this fall. As of now, the older one is pursuing a STEM degree. He took accelerated Math classes, enjoyed them and did fairly well. He wouldn’t have gotten into his dream college if he would’ve not got the chance to take these classes.
My younger one, a girl, is showing keen interest in the same direction. Gone through the college admission process and High School for the older one, I am beyond scared and disappointed and angry if the board decides on curbing the accelerated Math classes.
Every kid is different , please let the parents, teachers and kids decide what they want to do. As you can’t force everyone to take accelerated classes, similarly you have no right to take away accelerated classes from kids who can and want to pursue this path. The US needs more STEM graduates, not less, which would be very hard to nurture and produce if you decide to go on this path.”
— Swati Mattal
“Two sons in SFUSD — one before and one after the disastrous abolition of 8th grade algebra and the introduction of the new curriculum that forms the basis of this proposed state framework. The older son was so well-prepared for college and just received an engineering degree. The younger son was completely unprepared for college level math in spite of straight A’s in watered down math classes and this has closed a lot of doors for him. Tech degrees are a path out of poverty and this math framework means that path will be closed to poor Californian kids.”
— Jennifer Inman
“My children have attended school in Fremont Unified School District. During elementary school there is no option for accelerated math learning. My kids were offered ‘differentiation’ and ‘deeper learning’. These options are wholly inadequate and unchallenging. It is bad enough that kids that are good at math have to be bored in math for all of elementary school, but to extend this to middle and high school is ridiculous. The current educational system convinced my kids that they didn’t like math, although they are all very good at it. My middle child is going to be a senior this year, and she finally started enjoying math in High School, when she was being challenged by the course work. Teachers, in reality, do not offer more challenging math work to kids who are good at math. The revised plan is only paying lip service to advance learners without any substance. California will surely continue to decline in math achievement when you take your best students and offer them the ‘opportunity’ to tutor failing students rather than let them learn.”
— Tarrah Henrie
“My children were educated in the San Francisco public schools. Removing algebra as an option for eighth graders is a disaster. Our kids already do horribly in math, and my kids were gifted in math. I had to find scholarships to private schools for them. My daughter is now an engineer, for whom math is a core requirement. My son, who was even more gifted in math, now hates it as a result of so many years of boredom in his slow math classes before he got to private school. If you want our children qualified for STEM fields, why on earth would you hold children back who are capable of moving forward? You wouldn’t hold varsity athletes back until their less coordinated peers catch up. Why hold back mathletes?”
— Katherine Snyder