What’s Love Got to Do With It?

What follows is the response of parent, turned-K12 researcher and analyst, Deb Fillman to an OpEd in the LA Times by Jo Boaler. We thought the questions raised here were important for readers to consider when evaluating the the updated proposed California Math Framework.

Last month, in part to address intense criticism from experts in the Mathematics and STEM fields in particular, the California Department of Education released a revised draft of its Math Framework (CMF) for K-12. 

In anticipation of that event, Stanford Professor Jo Boaler, one of the Framework’s writers and most vocal supporters, penned an OpEd-slash-sales-pitch for the revised version entitled “How Can Kids Grow to Love Math?”

Why feelings, not facts?

Right away, I have a question: where did Professor Boaler get the impression it’s an appropriate goal of the K-12 public school to get kids to “love” math, rather than simply teaching them math? What evidence shows that their feelings about math translate to the success or failure of any curriculum? Is it a correct premise that we must first “love” a thing to learn it well?

Shouldn’t we first endeavor to ensure students understand math and come to appreciate when and where they could, or should, apply it procedurally? Isn’t it more important to take care that they graduate High School with sufficient math knowledge to function in their lives, using math, even if they don’t have access to electronic devices to compute for them? I can assure the good professor, I do not “love” math, far from it in fact, but I can “do” math as well as I need to because my teachers didn’t waste time worrying about, or trying to devise activities to encourage me to “love” math. 

She begins:

“Companies like Google, Apple and Intel offer some of California’s most cutting-edge — and highest-paying — jobs. Last year, those three companies alone brought in more than 10,000 people from other countries to take those jobs.”

OK, what does this have to do with kids “loving” math? Do all the kids who “love” math want to pursue these high-pressure, high-paying, high-tech jobs? Does “loving” math lead to the requisite skills? Do the people who do pursue them all “love” math? I bet they’re all good at math, as in “understand it deeply, and can apply it correctly, and consistently, when required to do so” (not the same kind of  “love” the author would suggest).

“Surely it’d be simpler for them to hire closer to home and skip the visa and other paperwork. Among the key reasons they don’t is that too few Californians have the skills — in particular, the deep understanding of mathematics — to qualify. It’s a situation we shouldn’t tolerate, and something the state’s new proposed math framework seeks to change.”

Where is the evidence for these claims?

I wouldn’t go with “surely,” unless I were “sure,” and without any evidence in the piece, it seems like a guess. Before making any recommendations about how to help the students prepare for jobs with these companies, I’d want to be “sure” I knew if that’s “among the key reasons” they’re hiring foreign talent. There could be a few other reasons, including lack of qualified-applicant interest in those specific jobs, or the companies’ ability to pay H-1B holders lower wages and hold them as captive employees. 

But let’s allow Professor Boaler her argument. High-paying job opportunities aren’t a bad thing to have in your state, and test scores certainly support the claim that CA lacks enough people with “the skills — in particular, the deep understanding of mathematics — to qualify.”

The problem is, she offers no evidence that’s the reason companies aren’t hiring Californians, and assumes that by seeking to change it, the proposed math framework will not only help, it won’t make things worse. Furthermore, according to SaveMath, there is no solid evidence that the proposed math framework will improve “the deep understanding of mathematics.” My concern is it could make the situation even more “intolerable.”

Where are our children in this, as individuals? Are they a labor pool for big-tech, or individual human beings we should be concerned about because we are their elders, and responsible to equip them for the lives they choose to lead, doing whatever it is they actually do “love,” whether it’s in Math or STEM, or not?

If this example is the first thing that comes to mind when Professor Boaler tries to explain the purpose of the revised proposed math framework, I’m inclined to think she doesn’t see California’s students as unique individuals, but rather products being prepared for market. Seems strange then to worry much about their “feelings” while making their way down the assembly line.

Not off to a persuasive start, she continues:

“The current system of mathematics teaching in the U.S. invites few students into the richness of thought, of learning and, ultimately, of careers that mathematical understanding makes possible. We blunt our children’s possibilities nearly from the start, telling far too many of them at a very early age that math isn’t for them.”

How does she know the current system “invites few students” into the “richness of thoughts, of learning, and ultimately of careers?” 

Where’s the data on that one? I realize it’s an OpEd, not a research paper, but it’s a damning indictment of the system to claim it excludes most of its students from something as fundamental as “learning” mathematics. It’s also a serious accusation that “we,” the mystery collective, are “telling far too many of them at a very early age that math isn’t for them." Claiming the research supports this is misleading at best, fraudulent at worst.

If teachers are actually telling their students “Math isn’t for you,” I would hope the Department of Education would, gather data on that, change teacher training requirements accordingly, and not just produce a new *optional* math framework for districts to follow. This kind of statement seems like an appeal to emotion (in this case outrage), which is why, in the absence of evidence, I’m inclined to be skeptical.

“Sometimes those communications are explicit; often they’re embedded in decisions, by schools or districts, to put students on different tracks as early as third or fourth grade and teach them math that often limits how far they can go. Unbeknownst to the children or their families, these grouping decisions will decide the students’ academic progress until the end of high school and beyond. This is far too early to make choices for students that can affect the arc of their lives. It is an unconscionable waste of human potential.”

What if this is the wrong solution?

Ah, there it is: “sometimes,” and “embedded.” In other words, she’s drawing a conclusion about student perceptions based on policy alone.

So “sometimes” those communications are explicit, but “often they’re embedded in decisions” about “students” plural? That’s quite different from telling a child “Math isn’t for you” personally. In fact, reading this paragraph, I’m left wondering whether it’s possible students would prefer to be in these groupings from that early an age. What if it’s preferable to progress at a slower pace, rather than struggle to keep up with kids who catch on more quickly? Flip it around: what if the kid who catches on quickly feels miserable waiting for classmates to catch up, so he can move on?

It’s anecdotal, but I wish I’d been tracked in a math class that moved more slowly in middle school! I might have felt more “love” for math than I did. Feeling perpetually confused and behind your peers doesn’t make you feel “love” the subject, and kids know, even if adults want to deny it, they are not all equally, naturally talented or interested in all subjects.

“We then go on to make mathematics even less inviting with a singular progression of courses originally set out in the 1800s, in a time before computers, artificial intelligence or coding — and the jobs that go with them.”

And yet, using the allegedly antiquated progression Boaler laments, we somehow managed to develop computers, coding, advanced telecommunications, artificial intelligence, and machine learning, and the data science  she’s so enamored of. We’ve even managed to send manned rockets into space, and bring them back again safely.

“Even before the pandemic — which has slowed learning for so many — only about 40% of students in California were proficient in math. That means 60% of the state’s students are not meeting standards, making California one of the lowest-achieving states in the U.S., a country that is not keeping up with global competition. America ranked 37th in math in 2018, according to the Program for International Student Assessment, which measures how effectively countries are preparing students for the mathematical demands of the 21st century.”

I can’t imagine anyone disputing the points made in this paragraph, but these facts, compelling as they are, don’t support the draft framework as the remedy.

“That’s why a committee of 20 educators from across California was appointed in 2019 to come up with a different approach to teaching math and update the state’s mathematics framework. I was one of five writers charged with articulating the ideas of this group.”

Why make this up?

This simply isn’t true. The committee was appointed because there was a timeline in place, and the Framework is rewritten about once every 7 years. California's math results have been more or less flat for decades. There was no "emergency crisis" that prompted this to happen. So why was it decided a “different approach” was necessary? 

Did anyone consider the students themselves, and the preparation they’ve had coming into school, or take a look at the skill of their early childhood and elementary school teachers? After all, teachers at the elementary level have to teach all subjects, not just math; maybe they need some help? I just think jumping to a “different approach” to the curriculum and pathways, without evidence proving that’s where the trouble lies, seems precipitous. Given Boaler’s association with YouCubed, a program which just so happens to mirror the “different approach” the framework recommends, it also seems self-interested.

“More than 3,000 people — educators, parents, a range of professionals, STEM academics and industry leaders — and more than 50 influential organizations, such as the California Mathematics Council and the National Council for Teachers of Mathematics, have voiced support for the guidelines. The framework is advisory; the power to make final decisions remains at the local level. A draft was released to the public last February, and thousands of public comments were reviewed."

Except most of those comments were negative, not positive. Just as many, probably more, “STEM academics and industry leaders,” criticized that draft, voiced their concerns about it publicly, and signed not just one, but two open letters insisting it be revised. Funny how she leaves that part out. An entire grassroots organization called SaveMath was also created to push back.

“The new framework, expected to be released soon, has updated its advice on meeting the needs of students at different achievement levels, emphasizing that schools should neither slow down children already experiencing great success nor put young children on a path to mathematical nowhere. This corrects an idea that had circulated widely — that the framework would hold back high-achieving students.”

How does moving away from standards improve understanding and skills?

The new framework is out, but according to commentators who have reviewed it so far, it hasn’t changed that much. Some of the more politicized examples have been removed from the text, but that doesn’t mean the goals of the framework itself have changed. In fact, according to the article linked above, the new version “... largely doubles down on the key goals of making math more relatable and closing the achievement gaps for Black and Latino students.” 

I'm not sure why we need to move the entire curriculum farther away from any accountable content standards to ensure all students feel appropriately “invited” to “love math,” or to pursue careers at the tech giants, but Boaler's OpEd would have us believe there's a positive connection. Has she considered that this approach could result in closing the gap by cutting everyone back?

“The framework also provides guidance on ways that could enable more of our children to fall in love with math and excel at it. It recommends teaching fewer isolated topics and more connected ideas, with students investigating, problem solving and reasoning, through tasks that engage them deeply.”

If the new definition of “provides guidance” is “tell teachers that following the framework will magically make kids love math more,” OK. But I was expecting something more specific that would illustrate how heterogeneous groupings, emphasis on social justice scenarios, language-heavy “activities,” and student-led “inquiry” methodology produce “love of math,” better proficiency, or even Google-employee-worthy “skills.”

“It also offers more flexibility in high school courses, improving on the single valued path of the past and aiming to increase student engagement and access so that many more students will pursue advanced courses such as calculus and other higher-level offerings.”

Is she suggesting kids don’t take calculus because they don’t have flexibility to take it in High School, because their pathways are too rigid, and don’t give them enough time? That’s odd…the original draft made the pathways more rigid, and made it harder for most students to take Calculus while still in High School! 

Even if Boaler is implying kids who “love” math more than they do now, will do well enough, sooner, so they’ll be able to “pursue advanced courses,” she’s still making a big leap! In the words of the great Tina Turner, “What’s love got to do with it?”

Maybe some kids take Calculus because they just “love” math, but I would bet more take it because their college or career ambitions require the course. It seems more appropriate to worry about whether they’ll be properly prepared to succeed in that course, than whether more kids have access to take it.

“One of the new courses set out in the framework for students in their junior and senior years is data science, a subject that students respond to, is valued by colleges and is important for the future. Giving students more mathematical options, and encouraging more students to take high-level math courses, is critical when jobs are blossoming in areas such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, information security, data analysis and software engineering.”

Why not start earlier, improving foundational skills?

I can’t help but wonder here why Professor Boaler is spending so much time on High School math, pathways, and careers? Wouldn’t a “love” of math have to start earlier? Wouldn’t a career in data science begin with  rock-solid math knowledge and understanding long before High School, in order to be prepared to master the necessary High School material? And why the emphasis on this one, niche career path? Yes, there are career options in these fields, but there are also millions of well-paying trade jobs—for which good math skills are also essential—left unfilled every year. If there’s one area where America has to “import” labor from other countries, it’s definitely the trades. Is it possible she is a career-chauvinist? 

“This is a deeply personal topic for me. At my local public secondary school in England, my physics teacher told me I could not advance to higher levels of science since I was not capable of learning the content. He gave the same message to every girl in the class. My family fought back, and I ended up excelling in physics in school. My first assignment as a mathematics teacher in London was to teach 13-year-olds who had been assigned to the lower-level tracks. One girl from a low-income home understood the message of that tracking all too well. She caught me up short with the question “Why should I bother?

The question became our shared challenge. I gave her more difficult work so she could do well on the national mathematics exam. She passed that exam, which allowed her to train to become a sound engineer. She went on to found a prominent sound production company. Her career would not have been possible if she had been allowed to do only the work set out for her on the lower math track.”

This seems like an argument for more rigor, and higher expectations, not more social justice, which apparently includes less emphasis on getting the correct answers. It also sounds like Professor Boaler understands that “love” for a subject stems from achieving objective success in that subject when she’s talking about herself, but when talking about the hypothetical struggling California math student, the achievement comes from the “love.”

“Both she and I had been told we were not good enough for the quantitative subjects we were studying — and it was not true for either of us. Too many students in California are given the same message — and it is one of the reasons the U.S. has relatively few students who are proficient in math. California’s new math framework will help us do better.”

I have too many unanswered questions.

She concludes by repeating her unsupported claim that California students are being told, or being “given the message” they are “not good enough” to do well at math. She never explains how the original draft, or the revised second field review draft framework sends a different message, nor makes good on the promise of her title: “How can kids grow to love math?”

Taking the points she did make, I have no idea why I should support this framework, other than because it is deeply personal to her that students be told, explicitly or implicitly, that they can do math, and that data science is the math they should want to do most, so a large tech company will be inclined to hire them and pay them a lot of money.

Neither these reasons, nor the vague hope that students will somehow, “grow to love” math more after this framework is adopted, persuade me to support it.

Deb Fillman is a parent, writer, speaker, and content producer who translates complex, and often confusing ideas and information about K-12 education, so parents can make informed decisions for their children, and teachers can pursue their calling with integrity and passion.

With over a decade of experience teaching, tutoring, and researching trends in educational theory and praxis, Deb is focused on understanding and solving the problems created when schools abandoned political neutrality and knowledge-based curriculum, to prioritize political activism rather than academic excellence.

Deb holds a BA from Colby College and a MS.Ed. from the University of Pennsylvania.