The editorial board operates independently from the U-T newsroom but holds itself to similar ethical standards. We base our editorials and endorsements on reporting, interviews and rigorous debate, and strive for accuracy, fairness and civility in our section. What do you think">Let us know.
Forty years ago, the education reform movement was kicked off when a presidential commission issued a report entitled “A Nation at Risk,” warning that many school systems tolerated mediocre results and let down millions of students as a result.
The 1983 report led to smart, effective changes in states that were both progressive (Massachusetts) and conservative (Texas). But its core thesis — about the need for schools to adopt and consistently use best practices — has been widely ignored on the crucially important task of teaching kids to read. Despite zero evidence that “whole language” works remotely as well as phonics, elements of the discredited approach are still used in more than half of elementary schools, according to a 2020 survey.
Is a similar disregard for basing instruction decisions on actual evidence about to emerge in California when it comes to teaching mathematics? That’s looking inevitable. In July, the State Board of Education unanimously approved a 1,000-page blueprint for teaching math to California’s 5.8 million public school students that was billed as being carefully crafted “to help struggling students.” Reports on the plan featured this spin while also noting that some critics predicted it would undermine math instruction.
But it wasn’t until Monday — when The Atlantic printed an analysis by renowned Stanford math professor Brian Conrad — that the state blueprint was exposed for its intellectual bankruptcy. He detailed how the plan used “sweeping generalizations” to justify the changes it endorsed — nothing resembling actual factual evidence. And it did so while posing this incendiary argument: The state should address longstanding achievement gaps in math by relaxing expectations of when students should master certain topics and by limiting access to advanced classes or discounting their importance, starting with calculus and algebra 2. Instead, students should be encouraged to take data science.
As Conrad showed, what the state considers “data science” is more like “data literacy.” The coursework doesn’t establish a firm foundation for STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) careers at all. This was among the many reasons that a majority of Black faculty who teach STEM classes in the UC system signed a letter blasting the plan over the likelihood that it would hurt — not help — students of color. These faculty brushed aside the happy talk and laid bare this fact: What the state board is doing won’t reduce the math achievement gaps between groups. It will obscure them. This does not represent progress.
Will Gov. Gavin Newsom figure out this is wrong and do something about it? Will University of California President Michael V. Drake, the first Black president of the UC system? Will anyone with clout?
Given that they’ve been silent to date, don’t count on it — no math pun intended. In California, basing the teaching of math on empirical evidence is somehow seen as a bad thing. Tough luck, kids. The adults in charge are letting you down.
