California's Proposed Math Framework--Chapter 1

My previous post on the proposed California math framework focused on Chapter 2.  I did that because I wanted to emphasize the race-based nature of the document. 

That's not the only thing wrong with the framework, though.  Chapter 1, the introduction to the framework, should be subtitled An Assault on Excellence.  It seems that the philosophy is "if everyone can't excel, no one can."  We'd never impose such a philosophy on something important--like sports--but math?  No problem, tear it down.

In a recent post, education blogger Joanne Jacobs wrote:

Once, California insisted that schools teach algebra in eighth grade in the name of equity: All students would have access to classes leading to 12th-grade calculus and careers in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM).

The state’s proposed mathematics framework, which may be ratified this summer, would delay algebra till high school and calculus till college.

Putting all math students in the slow lane will hurt high achievers without helping anyone else, argues Bill Evers of the Independent Institute, a former U.S. assistant secretary of Education, in the Wall Street Journal.

California's 1997 math standards had 8th grade students take Algebra 1 so they could be ready to take calculus in high school; this was done in the name of equity.  Today, keeping students out of calculus in high school is proposed in the name of equity. Which version of equity has the best interests of students in mind?

The word calculus is used 23 times in this chapter, just about all of them disparagingly.  The first few pages of the proposed framework dive into so-called social justice--and why calculus in high school is bad.  "Calculus" is a stand-in for "excellence".  Page 16 refers to a "rush to calculus" and also quotes from an MAA/NCTM joint statement:

the ultimate goal of the K-12 mathematics curriculum should not be to get students into and through a course in calculus by twelfth grade but to have established the mathematical foundation that will enable students to pursue whatever course of study interests them when they get to college.

It should be antithetical for those of us in education to hold students back from learning as much as they can.  But holding back students in pursuit of a political goal is exactly what this proposed framework does.   We should be providing the best education possible to all of our students, not punishing top performers because of the skin color of most of those top performers.  We should establish a strong mathematical foundation and allow students to accelerate to calculus.  It's possible in other countries, it's possible in other states--why only in California is achievement to be looked down upon?

"[S]tudents do not do well when rushed through mathematics courses", we read on p. 16.  I agree with that.  On the other hand, though, there's a difference between accelerating and rushing, and we should be doing the former for those who are capable of learning at a faster rate.

It gets worse on p. 17, where we read:

All students can take Common Core-aligned mathematics 6, 7, and 8 in middle school and still take calculus, data science, statistics, or other high-level courses in high school.

How?  If all students are to take the same classes in middle school, with no option of acceleration, then high school offers Integrated Math 1/Algebra 1, IM2/Geometry, IM3/Algebra 2, and then a pre-calculus/trig course.  How do they get to calculus, where do they accelerate?  Won't they have to rush? 

This framework doesn't change the math standards (Common Core) at all, it merely focuses educators on race.  Does anyone truly believe that keeping students together in the same middle school math classes, not allowing any student to accelerate in math until high school, is going to improve math education? 

When they get to high school, students will still be encumbered.  Page 6 tells us:

...changing the high-school level mathematics remains a critical component to opening mathematics doorways for all students.

Page 8 tells us:

A fundamental aim of this framework is to respond to issues of inequity in mathematics learning.

The framework seems fixated on the achievement gap, but its poor attempt at a solution reminds me of this exchange:

"He'd rather the poor were poorer, provided the rich were less rich."  The authors of this framework are ok with a smaller achievement gap, even if their means of doing so only penalizes the top students and does nothing for the lowest students.  (You do yourself a grave disservice if you don't watch the full 2:33, as Mrs. Thatcher even describes the gap.)

Chapter 1 opens by telling us that "mathematics has a history of exclusion and filtering, rather than inclusion and welcome...Girls and Black and Brown children, notably, represent groups that more often receive messages that they are not capable of high-level mathematics, compared to their White and male counterparts...."  Shortly thereafter we encounter the term "Latinx", a term that even NPR tells us only 3% of US Latino adults use.  This is not a balanced document; it was written by far-left-leaning people for whom race, not math, is the priority, and it will be imposed on your children, not theirs.  It's filled with the same old prescriptions--discovery learning!  culturally-responsive math!  investigations!  open-ended questions!  no right or wrong answers!--that have long been proposed by "fuzzy math" advocates but that only harm students.

It's hard to disagree with this:

The new 2021 Mathematics Framework, currently under consideration by California’s Department of Education, does away “with all tracking, acceleration, gifted programs, or any instruction that involves clustering by individual differences, without expressing any awareness of the impact these drastic alterations would have in preparing STEM-ready candidates.” Readjustments in this direction are happening in other states, too. These measures will not only hinder the progress of the generations of our future STEM workforce but also contribute to structural inequalities, as they are uniquely detrimental to students whose parents cannot send them to private schools or effective enrichment programs. Children stuck with this low-quality education are rarely prepared for higher education and employment in STEM.

These are just a few examples of an unprecedented fervor for revolutionary change in the name of Critical Race Theory (CRT), a doctrine that views the world as a fierce battleground for the narratives of various identity groups. This will only lead to a further widening of racial disparities in educational outcomes while lowering American children’s rankings in education internationally.

The suggestions in this framework should not be taken seriously by anyone who wants to improve math education.

I never thought I'd see the day when racism is so close to being injected into math instruction.  People of good conscience must put a stop to it here and now.  I thought I'd end this post with some applicable quotes--some attributed, some not--and ask you to consider them as you ponder the impact of this proposed document:

When they can't give you good government, they give you "woke" government.  When they can't give you good education, they give you "woke" education. 

 

It is the end game of their ideology. Norms divide, so all norms must be oppressive. All norms must be destroyed. ... it’s not all norms. It’s all higher values. That’s even worse. And I believe these are the direct targets: quality itself, competence itself, excellence itself.

—Jordan B Peterson

 

Wokeness is a weapon of privilege. Wokeness is not really about fairness for minorities, the oppressed and the poor, past or present. It is mostly a self-confessional cult of anointed bullies, and hypocrites of all races and genders, who seek to flex, and increase, their own privilege and power. Period.

—Victor David Hansen 

 

Wokeness is the state religion of the oligarchs. Wokeness is not about taking power from The Man. Wokeness is The Man’s way of securing his power over the rest of us. 

—Glenn Reynolds 

 

The allure of being a powerful victim is too great for most humans to deny. It’s seductive because it’s easy. Victimhood undermines principles of hard work & self-discipline & replaces them with entitlement & blame. The power is an illusion and the price is our agency. 

—Bridget Phetasy

Update, 5/29/21:  Here's a good analysis of the proposed framework.  Read the whole thing:

Rooted in Profound Anti-intellectualism, Elitism, Racial and
Gender Prejudice, the 2021 CMF Threatens to Undermine
Math Learning for All Students and Leave Disadvantaged
Ones Permanently Behind.