Editor's note: This piece was authored by Arman Sidhu.
California’s recent decision to overhaul its mathematics education framework has generated extensive debate and discussion. The proposed changes, aimed at creating more equitable learning opportunities, diverge sharply from well-established teaching practices and research in mathematics education, repeating historical errors that pose serious ramifications for American students.
At its core, California’s mathematics framework promotes a one-size-fits-all approach. Tracking students based on their abilities and needs is now discouraged. Other contentious elements of the plan include deterring enrollment in Algebra II, in favor of “simpler alternatives” such as pricey and catchy courses in data science, a subject and skill that requires a solid foundation in algebra.
Furthermore, the framework rebukes decades of research in effective mathematics teaching. Exploratory learning –– the practice of allowing students to wander through mathematical concepts with less structured guidance, often leading to a less rigorous and less grounded understanding –– has been prioritized over the teaching of basic math concepts. Social justice content has also been incorporated into the subject’s curricula.
Advocates of the framework suggest these changes will close the achievement gap between remedial and advanced learners by leveling the field for everyone. Yet this dramatic shift is far from novel, effectual, or equitable. By limiting the opportunities available to high-performing students, California runs the very real risk of further imperiling the state’s public school enrollment and its economic competitiveness.
Throughout the history of American education, there have been moments of significant reform, particularly in foundational subjects like math and reading. One successful example of such a reform includes the passage of the National Defense of Education Act (NDEA), which stands in stark contrast to the rationale underpinning California’s framework and offers poignant reminders and lessons for today.
Sputnik’s Shock Treatment
In the past, America’s approach to education policy has seen both successes and missteps. One notable success came in the late 1950s when the U.S. education system shifted significantly after the Soviet Union launched Sputnik. This event stirred concerns over American education, especially in math and science. In response, the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) passed with bipartisan support in 1958.
The NDEA aimed to strengthen U.S. leadership in critical fields, leading to a significant increase in higher education enrollment, particularly for math and science majors. It also initiated early talent identification programs in American K-12 education, which helped recognize and nurture gifted students by providing quality, differentiated instruction.
Given the re-emergence of great power competition between the United States and China, a robust education system is crucial to maintaining our edge in research and development. We need to build on, not undermine, the potential of America’s brightest students.
By discouraging tracking, California’s math framework risks sacrificing excellence for a faulty interpretation of equity that takes opportunities away from students. California’s choice sets a concerning precedent for mediocrity in a subject vital for American supremacy and technological progress.
While America’s math education success post-Sputnik set an example of how to effectively train students, the misguided approaches of the “Math Wars” of the 1990s show what not to do.
1990s Math Wars
The “Math Wars” of the 1990s pit traditionalists against reformers in the debate surrounding American math pedagogy. On one side, traditionalists championed evidence-based practices rooted in automaticity and algorithmic procedures. On the opposite end, reformists argued for exploratory learning while de-emphasizing the need to memorize basic math processes — an incipient version of California’s current framework. Numerous studies have illustrated the detriments of a less structured, exploratory approach to math education. Moreover, international assessments like the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) show American students lagging behind their peers in countries using traditional methods of math instruction.
A bedrock of traditional mathematical education—the mastery of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division—has been demonstrated time and again to be instrumental in setting a student’s trajectory in the subject. When students can automatically recall these facts, it allows cognitive resources to be allocated to more complex mathematical operations and problem-solving. With a stable foundation in place, it’s easier to progress to advanced Math topics necessary for in-demand STEM jobs, like Data Science.
Conclusion
Innovation, especially in education, should be encouraged. But the pitfalls of California’s decision lie in its implementation and its neglect of evidence-based pedagogy. Although standards frameworks are seen more as guidelines than laws, overhauls wield influence over textbook adoption, instructional practices, and professional development for teachers.
Nearly 6 million students in California will be affected by the changes, which could lead to a generation of students ill-equipped to handle the rigors of college. Concern over the quality of their child’s education might push more parents towards alternatives to public schooling, further exacerbating the state’s public school enrollment challenges.
While the notion of equity in education is admirable on the surface, the method through which California’s math framework pursues it would have unintended consequences that outweigh the benefits. The elimination of early tracking, under the guise of avoiding biases, runs counter to the foundational idea of celebrating individual abilities and freedoms.
A one-size-fits-all approach not only diminishes opportunities for gifted learners but also inadvertently suppresses the potential for excellence across the board. True liberty in education should foster the individual strengths of each student, not attempt to mold them into a single, standardized ideal.
Arman Sidhu is a contributor for Young Voices who has worked in K-12 education as a principal and teacher in public and charter schools and currently leads a nonprofit microschool.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member