In the past several months, I’ve posted comments decrying California’s Frameworks for Mathematics in its denial of giftedness and its abandonment of programs to meet the needs of gifted students. (See https://www.intelligence-and-iq.com/does-americas-have-its-priorities-in-order/)
An important goal of the Framework is to replace ideas of innate mathematics “talent” and “giftedness” with the recognition that every student is on a growth pathway. There is no cutoff determining when one child is “gifted” and another is not.
Though that statement might appear innocuous on a quick read, it contains the underlying premise that all students come with a somewhat equal ability to learn mathematics and may differ only in the rate at which they learn. The conclusion is that special programs for the so-called “gifted” should not be provided. Yet, the provision of special education programs for those who have difficulty with mathematics contradicts the assertion that special programs are not needed to accommodate different learning abilities. In short, how can we recognize that some students are below average in mathematics ability and need special instruction, while denying that other students are significantly above average in ability and require a more challenging or faster-paced instruction?
Another part of this “dumbing down” of the mathematics curriculum was the removal of Algebra from grade 8, so that no students, even the most capable, would not be exposed to Algebra until grade 9. This would squeeze 5 years of formal mathematics into 4 years, preventing many capable students from taking advanced placement courses in high school.
Brian Lindaman, the co-faculty director of the Center for Science and Mathematics Instruction at California State Chico and lead author of the Frameworks stated, “We really see equity as the future for better math learning for all students in California.” Fortunately, many groups, organizations and individuals saw through the thinly-disguised egalitarian agenda and expressed outrage at the insidious ideology that attempted to sacrifice rigor in the name of social justice. Consequently, those drafting the revision of the Frameworks were forced to temper the language of the document, and assert that the document should be regarded by school districts as a set of recommendations rather than a mandate.
Furthermore, the politically-charged denigration of past math policies as “racist” had to be deleted in the third draft of the document. While it is desirable to have minorities become more proficient in mathematics, many recognized that this laudable goal cannot be achieved by eliminating opportunities for the most mathematically capable children. The breakthroughs in the sciences, technology and engineering in the next generation will come from the high achievers–a precious national resource.
The fourth revision of the document also retracts the ban on Algebra in grade 8, acknowledging that Algebra I, may be offered in the eight grade as an option for math acceleration. With properly qualified teachers, this could enhance the California mathematics program and elevate the mathematical performance of their students relative to those in other states. California currently ranks in the bottom third of states in math in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and ranks 32 in the world, far below average, on the recent Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). The drafters of the Frameworks may not realize that dumbing down the curriculum will encourage more parents of capable children to enrol their offspring in private schools, further undermining the average performance of the students in the public system.
After 10 months of rewriting several drafts, deleting politically-charged statements, revising recommendations and implementing changes to reflect public reaction, the California State Board of Education is expected to adopt the final version of the Frameworks in July 2022.
