[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.

____________________