About The Second Field Review for the 2022 California Mathematics Framework
Have They Heard Our Pleas?
The Second Field Review of the 2022 California Mathematics Framework was released on Monday, May 14th, and the 60-day public comment period has begun. From what we have read so far, the Second Field Review has many changes from the initial California Mathematics Draft Framework that was released.
Early Analysis
While we are still in the process of analyzing it, here are some things we have noticed so far:
The Good
There has been a win: Explicit calls to remove all acceleration and all derogatory references to "giftedness" as a false distinction, endemic to a fixed mindset, have been removed.
Also, it is apparent that they have heard our opposition. They have changed their language in a number of specific places in response to our critiques. They are listening to us, but they are still holding firm in their course. So we need to keep at it.
The Bad
However, they have doubled down on expanding cultural relevance in ways that we believe will work against the stated equity goals. These insertions will take time away from covering actual math content and replace it with introductions to social studies that are not backed by a comprehensive or balanced curriculum.
They overlay a moral perspective onto the teaching of math, one that dismisses objectivity as a valuable feature of math. When, in reality, neutrality is essential to the topic of mathematics. This rejection of objectivity denies the essential essence of the subject of math. It replaces objectivity and the application of logic with other ways of knowing and alternate ways of reasoning.
The new draft includes an increased number of calls to push away from the grade-by-grade content standards. Instead of focusing on the standards, they are proposing to teach only in the context of overarching "big ideas." Big ideas are a fine way of organizing the subject knowledge contained in the standards, but these calls remove the accountability of covering topic-by-topic standards. The framework’s approach will not convey the content in STEM-relevant detail.
There is also the matter of the poorly specified and inadequate high school pathway: "Mathematics: Integrating and Connecting". They claim it will stress practical applications and offer the promise of STEM jobs in data science and other related fields. However, the jobs they are referencing require more mathematically-targeted basic knowledge, which is the material that this pathway is designed to sidestep. In effect, by virtue of this dead-end pathway, they are going to re-establish the very same kind of inequitable tracking that they claim to be opposing.
Next Steps
The 60-day public comment period, ending May 16th, is the time the public has to submit input before the California State Board of Education makes a final decision on the proposed CA Mathematics Framework in July. During this time, it is important that we take a stance and make our voices heard in the opposition.
If you have not already done so, please sign and share our open letter so that we can increase our potential to make a change.
