Frequently Asked Questions

A: According to the California Department of Education (CDE), “Curriculum frameworks provide guidance to educators, parents, and publishers, to support implementing California content standards.” (https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/)

Every 7 years or so, the California Dept. of Education (CDE) publishes a new curriculum framework to guide California’s public school teachers in implementing California’s content standards. School Districts align their course offerings to match the curriculum framework; textbook publishers do the same.

Teachers are expected to follow the Framework’s guidance while teaching math content to implement the math content standards. The Framework matters.

Though the math content standards have not changed since the 2013 Framework, a draft revised version of a 2022 math curriculum framework has been submitted for approval. If approved, textbook publishers will align new curricula materials to this newly revised framework; school districts will adjust course offerings and policies to align as well, and teachers will be expected to follow the revised framework guidance in teaching math.

As such, all California stakeholders should understand what is being proposed and how it would affect their children.

A: Any parent or primary caregiver with a child in California’s public schools, especially those with students who may wish to pursue a career in a STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) field.

Anyone who cares about math, such as STEM-based companies that depend upon a well trained workforce proficient in math.

Why should they care? The draft framework places obstacles in a student’s path to completing calculus in high school, which makes California students less competitive for college STEM programs and STEM careers.

A: California’s math content standards have NOT changed since the 2013 Framework. What has changed is the focus of this proposed, draft framework versus the prior Framework. Below is a summary of some MAJOR ways in which the draft 2022 framework is significantly different from its predecessor:

• The proposed framework’s written text no longer has math content as its primary focus. The 2013 Framework devoted about 66% of its overall text to discussing specific math content standards, helping teachers, parents and publishers understand the mathematics in the math content standards. The draft framework devotes only 13.25% of its text to discussing specific math content standards.

• The draft framework shifts math from an objective field of study to a seemingly subjective one in which students “may” or “might” (the terms “may” or “might” appear 435 times in the draft framework in reference to learning math but “must” does not appear) learn important math ideas, but for sure will develop a “positive math identity” (Ch. 1, Line 151-2). This draft (math curriculum) framework does not even list all the math content standards that the Common Core says must be learned. Even so, the proposed framework proposes a completely new High School (Data Science) math pathway: Math–Investigating and Connecting (MIC) to either accompany or replace the Algebra 1/Geometry/Algebra 2 OR Integrated Math 1/2/3 sequence. This new MIC (Data Science) pathway does not have specific math content standards listed for any of its courses and after examining the pathway and course descriptions, it is clear that it will not prepare a student for a STEM career, including one in Data Science.

• The 2013 Framework devoted a chapter (about 30 pages) of writing to EACH grade level (with separate chapters for Algebra 1/Geometry/Algebra 2 and also for Integrated Math 1/2/3), listing the math content standards for each and giving examples and illustrations of the mathematics in each and describing how students come to learn it. The proposed 2022 framework devotes only 1 chapter to summarize all of grades K-5’s math content standards, and again, just 1 chapter to summarize grades 6-8’s math content standards, and once again, just 1 chapter to summarize all of the High School math content standards. This is a radical change from the 2013 Math Framework, in which 20 of its 28 chapters were devoted to describing all of the specific math content standards for each grade, to the draft 2022 framework having just 3 of its 12 chapters describing the specific math content standards for all the grades. In considering such a drastic change, one must wonder, if the proposed math curriculum framework is not mostly about mathematics and the math content standards, then what is it about? . . . That is the scariest part for parents and professionals who care about mathematics!!! Note: part of the answer to this can be found in “It Injects Politics into Math” on this site.

A: Yes. The draft framework’s guidance has all students take the same math class throughout grades 6-10, regardless of a student’s level of preparation, motivation, or ability. No student would take a separate advanced math class beyond his peers – in any of the grades 6-10 (Ch. 1 Lines 125-128, 136-140, 157-164, 219-220, Ch. 7 Lines 397-404, 478-488, Ch. 8 Lines 264-265).

The draft framework’s recommendations also impede a student’s ability to take advanced math classes beyond grade 10, by guiding that Algebra 1 be universally delayed until grade 9 (Ch. 8 Line 335-338), though the US Dept. of Education encourages students to take Algebra 1 in grade 8. Delaying Algebra 1 until grade 9 places obstacles in a student’s ability to take calculus in grade 12.

In the typical math middle school/high school math pathway, Algebra 1 is the first year of a 5 year long course progression to complete calculus in high school (Alg. 1, Geometry, Alg 2, Precalculus, Calculus). By delaying Algebra 1 to grade 9, the draft framework precludes most students from completing calculus in high school – as there are only 4 years (grade 9, 10, 11, and 12) to complete the 5 year long courses that lead up to and include Calculus (Alg. 1, Geometry, Alg. 2, PreCalculus, Calculus).

These draft framework recommendations, requiring students to stay in the same math class from grades 6-10, delaying Algebra I to grade 9, thereby impeding students from completing calculus in high school, collectively compromise a student’s preparation for STEM majors in postsecondary schools, which consider completing calculus in high school an unstated requirement. The draft framework acknowledges as much:

"Considering that many competitive colleges and universities (those that accept less than 25 percent of applicants) hold calculus as an unstated requirement..." (Ch 1 Lines 116-118)

See "Access to Advanced Classes is Denied" for more information.

A: The CDE’s claim is at best misleading. Currently, under the 2013 Math Framework, students with the desire, ability and preparation (including “gifted” students) may accelerate in mathematics in middle school, taking Algebra 1 or Integrated Mathematics 1 in grade 7 or 8 rather than grade 9. The draft 2022 framework recommends removing this option for students to accelerate in middle school — keeping all students together in the same level math classes — from kindergarten through grade 10. (Ch. 1 Lines 125-128, 136-140, 157-164, 219-220, Ch. 7 Lines 397-404, 478-488, Ch. 8 Lines 264-265)

According to Stanford’s study, ‘Educational Opportunity’ students in grades 3-8 may differ in academic preparation by as much as 4.5 grade levels (see San Francisco Unified’s data in the Educational Opportunity study, for example). Yet the draft framework recommends that students remain in the same math classes from kindergarten through grade 10. (Ch. 1 Lines 125-128, 136-140, 157-164, 219-220, Ch. 7 Lines 397-404, 478-488, Ch. 8 Lines 264-265) Serving students 4.5 grade levels apart in the same math class seems a very challenging endeavor; neither struggling math students nor ‘gifted’ ones may be well served.

The draft framework states:

“While every level of schooling must focus on providing access to mathematical power for all students, changing the high-school level mathematics remains a critical component to opening mathematics doorways for all students.” (Ch. 1 Lines 146-149)

The draft framework clearly envisions that its “common, shared (math) pathway” (Ch. 8 Lines 247, 257, 336), in which options or “doorways” to accelerate before grade 11 are closed (Ch. 1, Lines 152-155), somehow is the path to “opening mathematics doorways” (Ch. 1, Lines 146-149) for others. This begs the question: how does closing doors for some students open doors for others? Rather than allowing and supporting advanced and/or “gifted” students to accelerate in a separate math class/level, the draft framework suggests that holding advanced students back somehow lifts other students up. (Ch. 1 Lines 146-149, 152-155)

A: No. It’s not true. While the curriculum Framework is optional, many or most school districts will adopt it and follow its recommendations. (Funding for teacher professional development can be tied to Framework adoption, for example.) The draft framework definitely recommends removing middle school math acceleration pathways (Ch. 1 Lines 157-164, 219-220, Ch. 8, Lines 264-265), as it recommends that all students be in a ‘common shared pathway’ (Ch. 8 Line 247) throughout grades 6-10. This means — all students would be in the same math class from grades 6-10, and — that no student would take a separate advanced math class beyond his/her peers (Ch. 1 Lines 125-128, 136-140, 157-164, 219-220, Ch. 7 Lines 397-404, 478-488, Ch. 8 Lines 264-265).

A: No, it’s false. It’s important to understand that every course from K-8 develops student understanding of “algebra”. In fact, K-5 have a set of standards called “operations and algebraic thinking” and grades 6-8 have standards listed under “expressions and equations,” all of which further student understanding of “algebra”. However, the current CA math content standards include the rigorous course called ‘Algebra 1’. The draft framework proposes to delay students from taking this course, ‘Algebra 1’, until grade 9, though many students today take Algebra 1 in grade 8 or earlier.

Removing the option to take Algebra 1 in grade 8 places obstacles in the 5 year long progression to complete calculus in grade 12. As prerequisites, students must still pass Algebra 1 and Geometry (or Integrated Math 1 and 2) before proceeding to Algebra 2 (or Integrated Math 3), Pre-Calculus and then Calculus. Delaying Algebra 1 to grade 9 reduces the options to complete Calculus in grade 12, an unstated requirement for coveted STEM college degrees and careers; completing calculus in high school is a gateway to STEM. The draft framework even acknowledges that colleges view calculus completion in high school as an unstated requirement to pursue a STEM major, though it places obstacles in a student’s path to do so:

"Considering that many competitive colleges and universities (those that accept less than 25 percent of applicants) hold calculus as an unstated requirement..." (Ch 1 Lines 116-118)

A: The draft framework devotes only 13.25% of its text in its 800+ pages (2704/19802 lines of text) to discussing specific California mathematics content standards. It actually states that the draft framework should ‘avoid organizing around’ the math 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” (Ch. 1, Line 616-617)

Clearly the focus of the draft framework is on something other than math content standards. Please read more in ‘It’s Not About Math’ and ‘It Injects Politics into the Math Curriculum’

A: Instead of the draft framework organizing itself around the detailed math content standards (Ch. 1, Line 616-617), it suggests the following to teachers:

“Practical, beautiful, and unifying ideas should be the drivers for each unit, lesson, and activity that students encounter.” (Ch. 8, Lines 251-252)

And it describes

“...mathematical investigations” (Ch. 4, Lines 69-71, 112-114) where students “might” or “may” notice important math (concepts).

There is no mention that students “must” master math content standards.

Given the draft framework only devotes about 13% of its text to describing math content standards, the learning of specific mathematical content and procedures has been relegated to minimal status. See It Injects Politics into the Math Curriculum for more information.

A: Yes, it’s true. The draft framework’s “Math: Investigating and Connecting” (MIC) Data Science High School pathway will disadvantage students hoping to pursue a STEM major in college, including one in Data Science — and thus disadvantage students hoping to pursue a STEM career.

The MIC Data Science pathway is proposed to begin in grade 9, but the pathway does not provide detail of the specific math content standards it will cover. From the draft framework’s description (See Ch. 8), the MIC Data Science pathway includes data cleaning, uploading, downloading, and data analysis of social sciences related topics, but not engaging in rigorous standards-based math courses, even though a college Data Science major requires knowledge of advanced math.

In theory, according to the draft framework, a student will take MIC 1 in grade 9, MIC 2 in grade 10 and then starting in grade 11, either MIC 3: Modeling with Functions or MIC 4: Data Science or both (one after the other; each is a year long course). This MIC pathway is the CMF’s preferred option if it accompanies (or replaces) either the Algebra 1/Geometry/Algebra 2 pathway option or the Integrated Math 1/2/3 pathway series.

The draft framework states that MIC-1 and MIC-2 (which are to be taken in the 9th and 10th grade respectively, if a student chooses this pathway) “substantially align with CA CCSSM” (California Common Core State Standards for Math) and are an “implementation of Integrated Math 1 and 2 augmented by some data clusters moved from Integrated Math 3” (Ch. 8 Lines 370, 490-493). Which math content standards MIC-1 and MIC-2 actually address, though, is not specifically listed. Thus, no one knows which actual math content standards might be addressed in either course, MIC-1 or MIC-2. Most alarmingly, a lack of sufficient detail provided for the MIC-1 and MIC-2 courses makes it unclear what (math) topics are removed from Integrated Math 1 and Integrated Math 2 to make room for the added “data science” topics moved from Integrated Math 3. Due to the lack of detail, it’s unclear whether the initial MIC Data Science pathway courses, MIC-1 and MIC-2, provide sufficient mathematical foundation for a student to do higher level math.

MIC-3 and MIC-4 are optional courses and, according to the draft framework, either one can be taken in 11th grade. The draft framework (Ch. 8, lines 840-841) states that by taking either MIC-3 or MIC-4 in 11th grade, students in the MIC Data Science pathway have “the full-range of 12th grade options” open, including calculus. But this seems wishful thinking: from the draft framework’s description, as MIC-3 and MIC-4 do not even cover all of the Algebra 2 material (e.g., logarithms), let alone the Precalculus material, both of which are year long courses, and are prerequisites to taking calculus. This puzzling and unsupported statement, that a student has the “the full-range of 12th grade options” open, including calculus, after taking (Data Science pathway) MIC-1, MIC-2 and either MIC-3 or MIC-4,‘ is claimed to be backed up by research, but it is not (see Research Evidence, Section 4).

In the face of this unexplained and unsupported claim about the MIC Data Science pathway and Calculus, all do agree that Calculus completion in high school is important to be able to pursue a STEM major in college. The draft framework states:

"Considering that many competitive colleges and universities (those that accept less than 25 percent of applicants) hold calculus as an unstated requirement..." (Ch 1 Lines 116-117)

Though the draft framework states that theoretically, students could move from the MIC Data Science pathway to Calculus, it also states, “MIC- 4 Data Science and MIC- 3 Modeling with Functions” (2 one-year long courses each) together replace the content from Integrated Math 3 (Ch. 8 Lines 805-806 & 848) (Integrated Math 3 is the equivalent to Algebra 2, each is a year long course). So, if a student takes MIC-1 in 9th grade, MIC-2 in 10th grade, as the draft framework proposes, and then needs to take BOTH MIC-4 Data Science and MIC-3 Modeling with Functions (and separately, Pre-Calculus) before taking Calculus (as Algebra 2/Integrated Math 3 are prerequisites to taking PreCalculus and then Calculus), how are they to fit 6 year long courses (MIC-1, MIC-2, MIC-3, MIC-4, Pre-Calculus and Calculus) into 4 years of high school (grades 9, 10, 11, and 12)? The answer is they can’t, and thus a student on the MIC pathway will be denied the chance to take Calculus in High School.

It is ironic that even students who desire to major in Data Science in college (a rigorous math major that depends upon knowledge of Calculus), are thus much better served by not taking courses in the MIC/Data Science pathway.

A: The US Department of Education recommends students take Algebra 1 earlier, in grade 8, rather than later in school. This US Department of Education (US DOE) publication discusses the importance the DOE places on students taking Algebra 1 in grade 8. The DOE’s reasoning:

Taking the course earlier in their academic careers allows students sufficient time to take the more advanced courses that are often prerequisites for postsecondary STEM majors.

In contrast, the draft framework proposes delaying Algebra 1 to grade 9. Algebra 1 is the first in a 5 year sequence of year-long courses to complete Calculus in grade 12 (Alg. 1/Geometry/Alg. 2/Precalculus/Calculus). Delaying Algebra 1 to grade 9 means a student has only 4 years (grades 9, 10, 11, 12) to complete the 5 year long set of courses, compromising a student’s ability to ‘take the more advanced courses that are often prerequisites for postsecondary STEM majors.’

A: EDC § 51224.7, also known as the California Math Placement Act of 2015, requires multi-point, fair, transparent, and objective testing of pupils entering 9th grade for proper math placement. The Math Placement Act clearly envisioned that a pupil’s proper math placement in 9th grade may differ from another pupil’s, depending upon an individual pupil’s level of math mastery and preparation, as assessed by an objective test.

The draft framework’s proposed ‘common shared (math) pathway’ (Ch. 8 Lines 247, 257, 336), proposing that all pupils remain together in the same math classroom throughout grades 6-10 (Ch. 1 Lines 125-128, 136-140, 157-164, 219-220, Ch. 7 Lines 397-404, 478-488, Ch. 8 Line 264-265), conflicts with the math placement directives of the Math Placement Act (EDC § 51224.7) for pupils entering 9th grade.

In addition, the draft framework’s ‘common shared (math) pathway’ (Ch. 8 Line 247, 257, 336), that pupils remain in the same common math classes throughout grades 6-10, may also be in conflict with EDC § 51228.2. EDC § 51228.2 provides that local educational agencies (CA school districts) may not force pupils to repeat a properly accredited course that they have already completed to the satisfaction of a post-secondary institution, like a UC or a CSU, for example. Pupils who have satisfactorily completed properly accredited math courses, according to EDC 51228.2, cannot be forced to retake such a course, meaning these students may move ahead of their grade level peers into a separate math class, rather than remain in the same common math classes in grades 6-10 with their peers, as the draft framework proposes.

A: Go to our Take Action page and action items are detailed there. Make everyone you know aware of what is going on so they can make their voices heard. Sign up for this site so we can keep you informed. Feel free to comment or email us any questions or concerns.