(Image source: https://wallpapersafari.com/)

It was a welcome surprise to hear Brian Conrad talk to Kerre Woodham last week.  Brian Conrad is a Professor of Mathematics and Director of Undergraduate Studies in Mathematics at Stanford University in California, USA. 

Woodham had come across Conrad’s recent op-ed in The Atlantic, in which he discussed the findings of his examination of a 1000-page draft of the controversial California Mathematics Framework (CMF).  The CMF is similar to New Zealand’s draft Common Practice Model (CPM) in that it proposes how teachers should teach and the rationale behind it, with a strong focus on equity.

I shan’t attempt to explain what is already very well articulated by Conrad himself.  Believe me when I say this guy is thorough.  You can go to the website he created to publicise his critique of the CMF, including a whole document about citation misrepresentations.  It is, unfortunately, no surprise to me that Conrad discovered so many false or misleading claims in the CMF.  One of the CMF authors has been called out in the past for making claims but citing research that says almost the exact opposite. 

Conrad also shines a light on the CMF’s false promise of greater equity by meddling with traditional pathways (algebra and calculus) in a bid to level the playing field.  Again, evidence of success in San Francisco over a span of 10 years was exposed as a misrepresentation of the facts.  Removing an “inequitable” option led to a reasonably predictable outcome: the socioeconomically advantaged students found other ways to access that option, while the socioeconomically disadvantaged students were left even further behind, thus widening the achievement gap.  In much the same way that New Zealand’s Ministry of Education sat on their hands for 10 years after the Numeracy Project turned out to be a failed experiment, California’s State Board of Education has decided to press on with the CMF’s flawed ideology, turning a blind eye to the truth and quietly removing references to the San Francisco experiment from the final document.

But algebra and calculus is so last century, right?  Instead, the CMF wants high schools to focus on offering alternative pathways (data literacy masquerading as the more rigorous data science) that Conrad describes as “off-ramps”.  That too has already happened here in New Zealand.  Once upon a time, there was a fork in the high school road at the end of Form 6 (Year 12), when students could choose to study calculus or statistics in Form 7 (Year 13).  That fork has moved forward to the end of Year 11 (Form 5), and in reality, for many students, their choice has been pre-determined.  The modular nature of NCEA means that schools can offer different courses with more or less algebra in Year 11.  Students with less algebra in their course are effectively limited to a statistics pathway, while students with more algebra in their course have the full choice of studying calculus or statistics in Year 12.  Many students discover too late that their study and future career options are limited by a lack of algebra (and hence calculus) in their maths education.  The struggle to get back onto the calculus track without the pre-requisite algebraic skills is enormous.  Meanwhile, students on the statistics pathway are also short-changed because, over time, the mathematical content has been eroded and replaced with statistical literacy – the ability to interpret statistical graphs and critique statistical claims.  Don’t get me wrong, these are very valuable skills to have in the age of information and disinformation, but as Conrad points out, statistical/data literacy on its own will not lead to exciting careers in data science, as promised by the CMF. 

It is important to note that high schools are not to blame; they have a responsibility to navigate the system and find achievable pathways for all students, including those who struggle with algebra.  Any high school maths teacher will tell you that students tend to struggle with algebra not because of the mysterious variables x and y, but because they lack fluency with basic arithmetic, especially division and fractions.  In other words, the problems start at primary school.  

While there are many similarities between what’s happening on both sides of the Pacific Ocean, there is one major difference.  California’s CMF underwent two rounds of public consultation before being adopted in July this year, whereas no public feedback was sought when New Zealand’s Ministry of Education released Phase 1 of the CPM.  In my previous post, I drew attention to the flimsy evidence offered to support one of the CPM’s theoretical teaching approaches.  Schools would be right to be wary of claims that such approaches are “evidence-based”, particularly when some of the CPM authors are also teacher educators who have a commercial interest in promoting their research. 

We are less than a week away from finding out whether the CPM will be made compulsory for all state school teachers in New Zealand.  Whether or not you believe in the sociocultural ideals of the CPM, the sleight of hand in attempting to push this model through without public consultation is troubling enough.

Dr Audrey M. Tan
9 October 2023

Further listening/reading about the California Mathematics Framework:

Ep 11. California’s math controversy with Jelani Nelson Part I | Anna Stokke
Ep 12. California’s math controversy with Jelani Nelson Part II | Anna Stokke
Ep 15. Modern relevance in the math curriculum with Brian Conrad | Anna Stokke
Jelani Nelson and Tom Loveless on the California Math Framework | American Enterprise Institute – AEI