Though the draft framework commits itself to advancing ‘equity’, which it defines as “...ensuring that all students attain mathematics proficiency and increasing the number of students…. who attain the highest levels of mathematics achievement” (Ch. 2, Lines 55-59), in fact, the draft framework’s proposals will instead create more inequity.

In perhaps its most deleterious recommendations, the draft framework recommends removing math advancement options for all students before grade 11, while discouraging intervention options for struggling students. (Ch. 1 Line 125-128, 136-140, 157-164, 219-220, Ch. 7 Line 397-404, 478-488, Ch. 8 Line 264-265, Ch. 9, Line 1042-1043) and (Ch. 2 Line 302-305)

Blocking advancement

The draft framework recommends removing math acceleration options for all students before grade 11, directing that students remain with their grade level peers in the same grade level class from grades 6-10 (Ch. 1 Line 125-128, 136-140,157-164, 219-220, Ch. 7 Line 397-404 Ch. 7 Line 478-484, 481-488, Ch. 8 Line 264-265, Ch. 9, Line 1042-1043). Existing accelerated math pathways, such as taking Algebra 1 in grade 8, would be removed (Ch. 8 Line 264-265).

Concurrently, the draft framework proposes delaying Algebra 1/Integrated Math I until grade 9 (Ch. 8 Line 335-338), though many students today take Algebra 1 in grade 8 or even earlier. Delaying Algebra 1 to grade 9 impedes a student’s ability to complete calculus in high school – as there are only 4 years (grade 9, 10, 11, and 12) to complete the 5 year long series of courses prerequisite to and including Calculus (the traditional math pathway is Algebra 1, Geometry, Algebra 2, PreCalculus, Calculus).

The draft framework tries to sidestep the impediment it created for high school Calculus completion by delaying Algebra 1 until grade 9, claiming students can just skip Precalculus (Ch. 8 Lines 843-847). But STEM professionals throw water on this idea, saying in their critique‘...skipping precalculus is only feasible for very few advanced students..,’ and the research that the draft framework cites for skipping Precalculus does not support its conclusion at all.

Completing calculus in high school is known to be an unstated admission requirement for STEM (and other) majors at competitive colleges. The draft framework acknowledges this:

"Considering that many competitive colleges and universities (those that accept less than 25 percent of applicants) hold calculus as an unstated requirement...(Ch 1 Line 116-117)....if they are not in the advanced mathematics track and on a pathway to calculus in each of the subsequent six years of school, they will not meet this unstated admission requirement (Ch. 1 Line 119-122).

Students who depend solely upon the public school classroom, in districts that do adopt this draft framework, will therefore be less likely to complete calculus by the end of grade 12 and will therefore be less competitive in college admissions.

Students in districts that do not adopt this draft framework, and which do retain advanced math pathways, will be more likely to be able to complete calculus by the end of grade 12, and will therefore be more competitive in college admissions.

Thus the draft framework’s proposals create more inequity.

Discouraging intervention

Though the draft framework is quite explicit about removing acceleration options for students (Ch. 8 Line 264-265), it provides scant guidance on remediation and intervention options for struggling students. It even discourages teachers from identifying students that may require these support strategies (Ch. 2 Line 302-305). Yet today, nearly every school in California provides targeted interventions for students who have fallen behind grade level, or who have unfinished learning from prior grade levels. Given the California Department of Education (CDE) reports that less than 40% of California’s students met the achievement standards in math in 2018-19 (https://caaspp-elpac.cde.ca.gov/caaspp/), providing intervention seems expected. (Meeting the achievement standard in grades 3-5 is defined by the CDE as:

“The student has met the achievement standard and demonstrates progress toward mastery of the knowledge and skills in mathematics needed for likely success in future coursework.” (https://caaspp-elpac.cde.ca.gov/caaspp/UnderstandingSBResults#am2)

The draft framework’s main concern in this area seems to be avoiding a determination being made that a student requires intervention (Ch. 2 Line 302-305), rather than providing clear guidance on how, when, for whom, and in what form targeted interventions should take place:

“When students have gaps in understanding or unfinished learning from previous grades, teachers must provide support without making premature determinations about the student’s abilities—that they are a low achiever, require intervention, or need to be placed in a group learning different grade-level standards.” (Ch. 2 Line 302-305)

The 2013 Math Framework, in contrast, calls for immediate intervention as soon as students begin to fall behind:

“As soon as students begin to fall behind in their mastery of mathematics standards, immediate intervention is warranted... Students who are behind will find it challenging to catch up with their peers and stay current as new topics are introduced.” (pg. 695)

When it is readily apparent that a student does need targeted intervention, the draft framework’s wait and see approach seems destined to stall needed intervention and create more inequity.

The draft framework doesn't even make mention of student support and intervention terms in its 800+ pages, unlike the current 2013 Math Framework. A word search for the terms ‘at-risk’ (learners) and ‘RtI²’ (Response to Instruction and intervention) in the draft framework turned up no results. This seems a significant omission. The term, MTSS, which stands for California’s Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) (for at-risk learners), appears minimally in one chapter of the draft framework (Ch. 9). Does the draft framework’s omission of these topics mean its authors believe there will be no struggling math students that will require intervention? Or that math achievement gaps, which have just been exacerbated by school closures during the pandemic, for example, won’t require intervention? Does the draft framework’s omission signal that it does not want teachers to immediately step in and intervene?

In contrast, the 2013 Math Framework expounds on student support and intervention topics, including MTSS, RtI², remediation, and at-risk learners, in a dedicated chapter with sections devoted to support strategies, including for those with learning challenges, and with a section devoted to those who require advancement to remain challenged. (starts at Pg. 672). And, the 2013 Math Framework explicitly calls for intervention as soon as students begin to fall behind (pg. 695).

Students in districts that do adopt and follow this draft framework, seem much less likely to receive timely remediation and intervention in math than those in districts that don’t. According to the 2013 Math Framework, timely intervention and remediation can assist students “...to catch up with their peers and stay current as new topics are introduced.” (2013 California Math Framework https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/mathfwchapters.asp Pg. 695)

Thus the draft framework’s recommendations will create more inequity.

English Learner Students (ELs)

Though the draft framework rightly calls attention to the obstacles faced by English Learner students (ELs), the type of math instruction it suggests, adds, rather than subtracts, to the obstacles they already face. This will create more inequity.

The draft framework suggests math tasks packed full of English language text and content, a language EL students have yet to learn, rather than suggesting math tasks grounded in math concepts and standards, a new ‘language’ that all students are working to learn. This adds to the EL students’ difficulties. The following is an example “math task” the draft framework suggests in a grade 9 Math course (Ch. 8, Line 652-788):

Course: MIC1 / Integrated Math 1

• Background Reading on Climate Change
• With the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-1700s, the world began to see many changes in the production of goods, the work people did on a daily basis, the overall economy, and, from an environmental perspective, the balance of the carbon cycle. The location and distribution of carbon began to shift as a result of the Industrial Revolution, and have continued to change over the last 250 years as a result of the growing consumption of fossil fuels, industrialization, and several other societal shifts. During this time, the distribution of carbon among Earth's principal reservoirs (atmosphere; the oceans; terrestrial plants; and rocks, soils, and sediments) has changed substantially. Carbon that was once located in the rock, soil, and sediment "reservoir," for example, was extracted and used as fossil fuels in the forms of coal and oil to run machinery, heat homes, and power automobiles, buses, trains, and tractors. [This provides a good opportunity for discussing and reinforcing California Environmental Principle IV. "The exchange of matter between natural systems and human societies affects the long-term functioning of both."] (Supporting materials are available in EEI Curriculum units Britain Solves a Problem and Creates the Industrial Revolution and The Life and Times of Carbon, available at no charge from https://californiaeei.org/curriculum)
• Before the Industrial Revolution, the input and output of carbon among the carbon reservoirs were more or less balanced, although it certainly changed incrementally over time. As a result of this balance, during the 10,000 years prior to industrialization, atmospheric CO2 concentrations stayed between 260 and 280 parts per million (ppm). Over the past 250 years, human population growth and societal changes have resulted in increased use of fossil fuels, a dramatic increase in energy generation and consumption, cement production, deforestation, and other land-use changes. As a result, the global average amount of carbon dioxide hit a new record high of 407.4 ppm in 2018—with the annual rate of increase over the past 60 years approximately 100 times faster than previously recorded natural increases.
• The "greenhouse effect" impacts of rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations are diverse and global in distribution and scale. In addition to melting glaciers and ice sheets that many people are becoming aware of, the impacts will include sea-level rise, diminishing availability of freshwater, increased number and frequency of extreme weather events, changes to ecosystems, changes to the chemistry of oceans, reductions in agricultural production, and both direct and indirect effects on human health. [This offers a good opportunity to reinforce California Environmental Principle II. "The long-term functioning and health of terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine ecosystems are influenced by their relationships with human societies.”]
• You may visit https://www.climate.gov for more information.
• Mathematics/Science/English Languages Arts/Literacy (ELA) Task:
• Determine the relative contributions of each of the major greenhouse gases and which is the greatest contributor to the global greenhouse effect and, therefore, should be given the highest priority for policy changes and governmental action. Examine the growth patterns of related human activities and their relative contributions to the release of the most influential greenhouse gas. Based on these factors, analyze the key components of the growth patterns and propose a plan that would reduce the human-source release of that greenhouse gas by at least 25–50%, and determine how that change would influence the rate of global temperature change.

Multiple math task examples in the draft framework require significant English language processing, in contrast to math tasks grounded in math concepts and standards. English language processing adds to the challenges faced by EL students. Math instruction that is heavily reliant on written English language, as exhibited in the draft framework, will lead to increased gaps between EL students and non EL students; thus it will create more inequity.

Deemphasizing the State standards

Suggesting math tasks steeped in something other than math concepts and standards is not so surprising, given the draft framework advocates that teachers and (textbook) publishers avoid ‘...the process of organizing around the detailed content standards…’:

“This framework reflects a revised approach, one that advocates for publishers and teachers avoiding the process of organizing around the detailed content standards and instead establishing mathematics that reflect bigger ideas—those that connect many different standards in a more coherent whole.” (Ch. 1 Line 615-619)

The ‘detailed content standards’ mentioned above are the California Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CA CCSSM), adopted by the State of California.

According to a publication linked on the California Department of Education’s (CDE) website,

“The new California Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CA CCSSM) define what students should understand and be able to do in the study of mathematics.”

According to Corestandards.org:

“The Common Core is a set of high-quality academic standards in mathematics and English language arts/literacy (ELA). These learning goals outline what a student should know and be able to do at the end of each grade.”

Thus the California Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CA CCSSM) define the mathematical foundation for California’s public school students.

Teachers are required to teach the State Standards, and student math proficiency is based upon mastering the State Standards.

Yet the draft math curriculum framework advocates avoiding the process of organizing around the ‘detailed content standards’, and suggests leaning instead on ‘establishing mathematics that reflect “bigger ideas”...’ (Ch. 1 Line 615-619).

This seems contradictory as curriculum frameworks are meant to help implement the State standards:

“Curriculum frameworks provide guidance for implementing the standards adopted by the State Board of Education.”

"The purpose of the Mathematics Framework is to support implementation of California’s standards for mathematics." Mathematics Framework for California Public Schools, K–12 • Executive Summary (October 2015) (Pg. 1)

What are these ‘bigger ideas’ then, that should replace a focus on the ‘detailed content (State) standards?’ (Ch. 1 Line 615-619)

The draft framework advises teachers to plan to teach the “big ideas” of mathematics, and not to plan teaching around the topics or methods set out in the (State math) standards:

“Curriculum standards tend to divide the subject into smaller topics, but it is important for teachers and students to think about the big ideas that characterize mathematics at their grade level and the connections between them. Instead of planning teaching around the small topics or methods set out in the standards, or the chapters of textbooks, teachers can plan to teach the “big ideas” of mathematics.” (Nasir et al, 2014) (Ch. 2 Line 133-137)

The draft framework elaborates further on ‘big ideas’:

“It is helpful if mathematics teachers are given release time in which they can sit with colleagues and work out the big ideas in their grade level or course, then choose rich, deep tasks that invite students to explore and grapple with those big ideas (c.f.,145 Arbaugh, & Brown, 2005). These tasks can then form the basis of a course and, if the tasks are rich enough, they likely include many of the smaller methods and ideas set out in the standards.” (Ch. 2 Line 143 - 148)

So, from the draft framework excerpt just above (Ch. 2 Line 143 - 148), ‘big ideas’ are something that may yet be created, or determined, by a district’s mathematics teachers, possibly during district release time, which might be allocated for that purpose, by a district. If release time was allocated, and ‘big ideas’ created or determined, and ‘rich deep tasks’ chosen, these could form the basis of a course, which might include the ideas set out in the standards.

The draft framework’s proposal is a significant departure from prior math curriculum frameworks which explicitly describe math content standards and the teaching of those standards. Apparently the draft framework proposes to shift the focus from well defined, detailed, and State adopted math standards, the mathematical foundation for California’s students, to yet to be created (Ch. 2 Line 143 - 148), ill defined ‘bigger ideas,’ and ‘rich, deep tasks,’ which might or might not include all the ‘smaller ideas and methods set out in the (State) standards’ (Ch. 2 Line 143 - 148).

The draft framework’s proposal seems to bode poorly for the prospect of implementing State standards and ensuring student proficiency. Moving away from the State standards — on which proficiency is defined — seems unlikely to ensure “...that all students attain mathematics proficiency...,” part of the draft framework’s definition of, and goal of, attaining equity (Ch. 2, Lines 55-59).

For those students who rely solely on the public school classroom, the draft framework’s plan to shift the focus – away from the State math standards — would likely mean not all of the State standards would be taught or covered in districts that adopt the draft framework, creating gaps in student understanding, decreasing student proficiency, and creating more inequity.

In all of these areas, blocking student advancement, discouraging intervention, suggesting instruction packed full of English language text, and shifting the focus away from state standards, the draft framework will further disadvantage students who rely solely on the public school classroom, and in the process, create more inequity.