Opposition, supporters, and other views

An evolving list of groups, online venues, organizations, and viewpoints

My own opposition to the 2021 Math Framework stems from two recent experiences: the first, as a public-school teacher presenting the CPM math curriculum to 9th graders, and the second, more recently, as a private tutor of advanced learners in a variety of grades. I have seen and heard many statements of intent, both in the framework document and in spoken comments made by the writers at the May 19th IQC meeting, which struck me as highly unlikely outcomes, and I will expand on these details in upcoming posts.

Here is where I’ll maintain links and a brief guide to online resources and networks.

The Framework and the CDE

The framework documents have been developed along a timeline that is posted on the CDE’s (California Department of Education’s) website. The workings of this process are new to me, but I will summarize them here and update details as they become clearer to me. When the framework came to my attention, it was the middle of the First Field Review period, which ended on April 8th.

On May 19th, the CDE held a meeting of its IQC (Instructional Quality Commission) in which Agenda Item 3 was a meeting of the Mathematics Subject Matter Committee (SMC) to recommend approval of the Draft Mathematics Framework. Prior to the meeting, public comments from the field review were made available in two forms, a box.com repository of all the feedback received, and a Microsoft Word document that was linked on the agenda page, which referred to the comments submitted via the online survey. (The online survey restricted answer lengths to 1000 characters for each question, and more elaborate comments were submitted via an email address.)

Opposition

New opposition is emerging week by week. There is a change.org petition that is (as of May 31) nearing 5000 signatures. There is also a Facebook group that has been gathering support and providing a great venue for exchange of information. Since the group is private, and also because the information posted there is not so readily searchable, I will be compiling and sharing much of that same information as articles and updates.

During the public comment period, over 240 survey respondents and hundreds of email responses were collected, the vast majority of them opposing the framework in some substantial way. During the SMC portion of the May 19th IQC meeting, there were 76 callers who spoke, of which only 5 were fully supportive of the draft, and 66 of the callers were heavily opposed to it. There is recorded video of the entire IQC meeting.

Individuals

1. Deacon John Wilson III of the West Angeles Education and Enrichment Program.

2. Concerned parents and teachers who have been quoted in the media or active in social media, including myself, Steve Miller, Lori Meyers, Liang-Fang Chao, and a growing number of others. There were hundreds who responded during the public comment period, and 67 who called in to the May 19th IQC meeting.

3. Representative Ted Lieu, D-Torrance (Los Angeles County)

Organizations

1. CA Association for the Gifted (CAG) — Facebook page and position statement

2. National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC)

3. Educators for Quality and Equality

4. California for Equal Rights Foundation (CFER)

5. The Independent Institute — Commentary article by Bill Evers

Much of the opposition comes from parents and educators who have worked more extensively with gifted children. Many of the most egregious comments in the framework malign these students and spread misinformation about them. Others oppose the framework due to its self-described orientation toward social justice, which appears to be heavily-informed by recently popularized variations of Critical Race Theory, calling for a dismantling of existing systems as the pathway toward better equity. Stepping back from these more political motivations, many of those opposed to the framework see the research supporting it as simply flawed, a poorly tested shift on a grand scale that will do major harm to students at all levels, including the very ones it’s intending to support.

Supporters

The framework appears to have strong support from both the Mathematics Subject Matter Committee and the Instructional Quality Commission of the CDE. Both of these bodies recommended the draft unanimously for approval, in spite of many negative comments that had been expressed in writing during the public comment period and by phone during the hearing. One caller said that there were over 18 organizations that were engaged with the Math Framework process.

Individuals

Support for the framework comes, first and foremost, from its authors:

1. Professor Jo Boaler of Stanford University

2. Jenny Langer-Osuna of Stanford University

3. Brian Lindamann of CSU Chico

4. Katy Early of CSU Chico

5. Ben Ford of CSU Sonoma

In addition to authoring the framework, Jo Boaler has promoted it on her youcubed.org website.

Organizations

Between support that has been expressed on websites, and comments made during the May 19th IQC meeting, it would appear the following bodies support the framework:

1. California Mathematics Council, a liaison agency listed with the California Teachers Association — hosting a series of framework talks

2. STEM (Science Technology Engineering and Math) unit of the Los Angeles County Office of Education, Division of Curriculum and Instructional Services — Fireside chat videos about the Math Framework for Administrators, Elemetary, and Secondary

3. California STEM Network — A division of Children Now

4. Californians Together

Supporters cite problems with tracking, laning, and accelerated programs as they currently exist, and they are trying to ease the apparent “rush” through math that has gained momentum in recent years, which they perceive as leaving too many students either overly-stressed to keep up or too far-removed from college and career opportunities if they don’t. They refer to studies indicating improved engagement and course satisfaction among students who were formerly not excelling in math, but these studies have not been conducted to convincingly measure the specific impacts on higher-performing students.

Other Views

There are education researchers who still recognize the value of gifted education, and a few of these individuals and programs merit special mention here.

1. Professor Frank Worrell of U.C. Berkeley, a long-time expert in gifted education and currently President Elect of the American Psychological Association

2. Professor Scott Peters of the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater

3. Research indicated by the National Association of Gifted Children

4. Study by Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark¹ — summarized nicely in this review

1. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.