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.”

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. It also undermines basic math proficiency by removing required fluencies and by favoring “big ideas” over detailed content standards.

A: California’s math content standards have NOT changed since the 2013 Framework. What has changed is the focus of this proposed, second field review 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 5.8% 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 over 300 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. 7, Line 71). This draft (math curriculum) framework does not even list all the math content standards that the Common Core says must be learned. Instead, it describes explorations in which students are “likely to encounter standards” and asks teachers to teach math “about which students wonder” and “about which students pose questions” and which is “authentic” and “Culturally relevant”. 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 OR Integrated Math 1/2 sequence. This new MIC (Data Science) pathway 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 (and one appendix) 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: The CDE’s claim is somewhat misleading. Currently, under the 2013 Math Framework, students work through a standards-based curriculum that supports any student with the desire, ability and preparation (including “gifted” students) to complete an in-depth Algebra 1 or Integrated Mathematics 1 course in grade 9 or earlier. The draft 2022 framework promotes a “big ideas” approach over the learning of detailed math content standards, starting in preschool, which will compromise the Algebra-readiness of all students. The draft 2022 framework also suggests that all students take the same math courses until grade 11.

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). To suggest students remain in classes with students as much as 4.5 years behind them does not best serve the needs of “gifted” students, nor does it allow those students to pursue the higher level mathematics needed for STEM careers. They will lose the benefits that come with the in-depth approaches and standards-aligned assessment of a standards-based curriculum.

A: The second field review (SFR) draft framework devotes only 5.8% of its text in its 900+ pages (1,137/19,501 lines of text) to discussing specific California mathematics content standards. It never even lists all of the California math 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 437-438)

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 437-438), it suggests the following to teachers:

Students need to experience the “wonder, joy, and beauty of mathematics.” ( Ch. 7, Line 70)

and

Teachers need to “include the development of positive identity for all students in their learning of mathematics” (Ch. 7, Line 71)

And it describes

“The framework no longer needs to provide as much expansion on the individual standards; rather, curriculum designers and California educators need guidance for creating mathematics experiences that provide access to the coherent body of understanding and strategies of the discipline.” (Ch 1. Lines 427-431)

See It Injects Politics into the Math Curriculum for more information.

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 recommends 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: Send a letter to the State Board of Education (SBE) explaining how this framework will harm our children. Public comments will be received until May 16.

To submit more detailed critique, go to our Take Action page and click buttons to submit letters to the SBE based upon each major concern we have about the proposed framework.

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.