[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 119 (Wednesday, July 12, 2023)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E664-E665]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        RECOGNIZING CALIFORNIA'S VERY FLAWED K-12 MATH FRAMEWORK

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. MICHELLE STEEL

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 12, 2023

  Mrs. STEEL. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article written 
by Williamson M. Evers of California. His works explains major flaws in 
the draft of the California State Board of Education's K-12 mathematics 
instructional framework. The Board is having a final hearing today.

                    1. Unscientific Teaching Methods

       Just as there is a science of reading instruction, there is 
     a science of math instruction. The scientific way of teaching 
     math includes:
       having students memorize math facts (like multiplication 
     tables and addition and subtraction facts) and standard 
     algorithms (time-tested math procedures):
       teaching computational procedures and conceptual 
     understanding together (and not as progressives would have 
     it, concepts before procedures);
       stressing that getting answers to problems right and doing 
     so quickly are components of math fluency; and
       bearing in mind that committing math facts and procedures 
     to long-term memory frees the student's mind to handle novel 
     problems.
       Instead, the progressive-education authors of the math 
     framework want students to learn through their own inquiry 
     and self-discovery. The authors give little emphasis to 
     mastery of facts and standard algorithms. The authors want to 
     organize math instruction not in the architectonic system of 
     increasing abstraction in which it has traditionally been 
     taught, but instead in accordance with vague, billowy ``big 
     ideas.'' Educational researcher Tom Loveless (retired from 
     the Brookings lnstitution) says: ``The previous framework was 
     very clear that math fluency involves speed and accuracy. The 
     proposed framework rejects speed as being even part of 
     fluency, and that's a problem.''
       The newly revised framework delays fluency in 
     multiplication and division tables until late in elementary 
     school. This delay will spill over into subsequent math 
     learning, and Loveless believes that many students will be 
     unprepared for Algebra I even by ninth grade.
       As I have written before (with my co-author, the late Ze'ev 
     Wurman):
       The framework promotes only the progressive-education 
     approach to teaching math, calling it ``student-led'' 
     instruction, ``active learning,'' ``active inquiry,'' and 
     ``collaborative'' instruction. But evidence from the 1950s 
     through recent times shows that this way of teaching math is 
     ineffective. That evidence comes from scrutinizing carefully 
     designed studies featuring randomized control and what are 
     called quasi-experiments, which approximate the effect of a 
     randomized assignment of students to different groups. Quasi-
     experiments look at cases, for example, where two adjoining 
     districts with similar populations or two adjoining similar 
     schools adopt different policies. Both sorts of studies are 
     much stronger evidence than the case studies that progressive 
     educators rely on.
       In the spring 2012 issue of American Educator, the magazine 
     of the American Federation of Teachers, top educational 
     psychologists Richard E. Clark, Paul A. Kirschner, and John 
     Sweller summarized ``decades of research'' that ``clearly 
     demonstrates'' that for almost all students, ``direct, 
     explicit instruction'' is ``more effective'' than inquiry-
     based progressive education in math.
       Clark, Kirschner, and Sweller conclude that after ``a half 
     century'' of progressive educators advocating inquiry-based 
     teaching of math, ``no body of sound research'' can be found 
     that supports using that approach with ``anyone other than 
     the most expert students.'' Evidence from the best studies, 
     they emphasize, ``almost uniformly'' supports ``full and 
     explicit'' instruction rather than an inquiry-based approach.

                    2. Misrepresentation of Research

       Brian Conrad of Stanford's math department points out that 
     the revised math framework contains much in the way of 
     ``false or misleading'' descriptions of research on math 
     instruction. It also cites ``unpublished papers with design 
     flaws,'' instead of relying solely on peer-reviewed published 
     work. Conrad asks: Why does the framework ``still not adhere 
     to the level of

[[Page E665]]

     research quality'' called for by the What Works 
     Clearinghouse?
       Conrad says that the framework is invoking neuroscience 
     literature ``in misleading ways'' to promote ``pseudo-
     scientific claims'' about progressive-education math 
     instruction improving pathways in the brain. The framework 
     wrongly cites a paper to promote the general use of 
     ``invented strategies'' (that is, students devising their own 
     strategies) as a proven approach to learning standard 
     algorithms.
       Conrad finds that the framework distorts citations in a way 
     that indicates ``an ideological (rather than evidence-based) 
     opposition to acceleration.'' He points out that ``there is 
     extensive literature with conclusions opposite'' that cited 
     in the framework, ``but these are barely ever mentioned.''
       As Wurman and I have written before:
       State-adopted education programs and recommendations are 
     supposed to be ``research-based.'' This does not just mean an 
     article or 2 in a peer-reviewed journal. It means there is a 
     consensus or strong evidence of effectiveness in the 
     published research. If no strong evidence exists, a practice 
     should not be broadly recommended. . . .
       If the framework writers had wanted solid evidence, they 
     would have relied on the final report and subgroup reports of 
     the 2008 federal National Mathematics Advisory Panel. They 
     would have made even more use of the federal Institute of 
     Education Sciences practice guides, which are designed for 
     teachers and curriculum writers.

                 3. Rejection of Algebra I in 8th Grade

       The revised framework rejects (as did its earlier 
     iterations) the time-honored aim of preparing students to 
     take Algebra I in eighth grade. Eighth-grade algebra is the 
     policy in high-performing foreign countries whose inhabitants 
     will compete with America's children in the future--and that 
     eighth-grade goal was expressly part of the 1999 and 2006 
     California math frameworks. This current framework recommends 
     ninth grade as when almost all students should take Algebra 
     I.
       Students who plan to go to selective colleges and 
     universities or who plan to major in STEM fields in college 
     need to pass calculus in high school. Taking algebra in 
     eighth grade allows them to do so.
       Education journalist John Fensterwald points out that:
       To discourage widespread enrollment in eighth-grade 
     algebra, the framework's diagram laying out STEM and non-STEM 
     course pathways omits eighth-grade algebra as an option.
       There are possible (but laborious and bureaucratically 
     troublesome) workarounds for STEM-inclined students, like 
     double-booking math classes in one year. But the system is 
     not friendly to the workarounds, and they are discouraging to 
     students. As Conrad points out, the framework authors (who 
     are ideologically opposed to acceleration) had three years to 
     come up with a way to accommodate those who need to take 
     calculus in high school, but they didn't do it.
       The recent effort in San Francisco Unified to make all 
     students take Algebra I in ninth grade, was, as Conrad points 
     out, ``a total failure, exacerbating the very inequities it 
     aimed to prevent.''

      4. Substitution of Weak Data Science for Rigorous Algebra II

       The framework promotes the idea of students taking math-
     lite data science courses instead of Algebra II. Students who 
     take such math-lite courses will be ill-prepared for math and 
     other STEM courses when they get to college.
       In his report on an earlier draft of the math framework, 
     Conrad says of the promotion of these data science classes: 
     ``Whatever author is responsible for such a myopic view of 
     mathematics should never again be involved in the setting of 
     public policy guidance on math education.''

          5. Knee-jerk Opposition to Tracking and Acceleration

       I have previously mentioned the framework's opposition to 
     acceleration. It also opposes tracking. As Conrad points out, 
     the framework uses ``citation misrepresentations'' to promote 
     its ``anti-tracking narrative'' of heterogeneously-grouped 
     classrooms at all levels.''
       Homogeneously-grouped classrooms allow teachers to work 
     more effectively without the need to teach students who are 
     at widely different levels. Students can be evaluated on 
     their achievements in different subjects and placed in 
     accelerated classes only in the subjects where they excel. 
     This avoids the misplacements inherent in across-the-board 
     multi-subject tracking. The framework displays an ideological 
     rather than empirical opposition to ability grouping.

                 6. Classes in Wokeness Instead of Math

       In Chapter 2, the framework pushes teaching methods in math 
     class that emphasize radically egalitarian ``social justice'' 
     goals. Not only is radical egalitarianism ethically dubious, 
     but math class should be for math, not for political 
     indoctrination.
       For example, the current framework contends that 
     mathematics is to be used to ``both understand and impact the 
     world.'' It argues that math teachers should hold the 
     political position that ``mathematics plays a role in the 
     power structures and privileges that exist within our society 
     and can support action and positive change.''
       Furthermore, according to this official California 
     framework, teachers should use mathematics politically ``to 
     analyze and discuss issues of fairness and justice.'' In an 
     elementary school classroom, teachers would, for example, 
     have students ``studying counting and comparing to understand 
     fairness'' in the context of current and historical events.
       The framework recommends the fringy methods of ``trauma-
     informed pedagogy,'' which encourage students to suggest 
     ``recommendations and taking action.'' Teachers should also, 
     it says, provide ``curricular examples'' that provide 
     students with a mathematical toolkit and mindset ``to 
     identify and combat inequities.'' According to the framework, 
     students are ``to use mathematics to highlight inequities.'' 
     Then they should learn to use mathematics to transform the 
     world--a rather inappropriate task for math class.

                               Conclusion

       There are close to 6 million students in California. What 
     is done in California public schools influences practices in 
     the rest of the country. Parents and taxpayers want math to 
     be taught sensibly. It's just a scientific reality that 
     children need to learn math facts and standard algorithms. 
     This current California counterproductive math instructional 
     framework will produce a repeat of the Math Wars of the 1990s 
     or a deeper rebellion against public schools and in favor of 
     parental choice.

                          ____________________