In a 11/29/21 article by Joe Hong in Cal Matters, Tom Loveless, a retired math education expert puts it in a nutshell: “The way you get social justice in mathematics is to teach the kids math … not by dressing up mathematics in social justice.”
In the original draft of the CMF, central author and instigator Jo Boaler actually went so far as to write that mathematical talent isn't a thing, that it doesn't exist. Of course, to say such a thing is nuts. It's ridiculous. Nevertheless, differentiated advanced instruction for gifted students was condemned, at best, in early drafts of the CMF. Palo Alto parent Avery Wang makes the point clear. “Holding back high achievers makes them achieve more? That’s exactly the same philosophy that’s being promoted in the math framework.”
But this is the inevitable, illogical conclusion of woke ideology in math education, and woke ideology, generally: “Our personal differences are of central importance, but despite real differences, we should all achieve equally.”
The CMF is the culmination of a decades-long crusade within math education circles to teach math “constructively" by "discovery” and make math “more relevant” and “more fun." As a long-time member of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, a trade group for math educators that took a leading role in promoting constructivisism the late 1980s, I’ve watched this movement gain steam in recent decades.
Music Theory is not “Music Appreciation.” Those are two entirely different courses. Likewise, “Precalculus” and “Recreational Mathematics” are utterly dissimilar in purpose, method, and scope.
In the article, Michael Malone, parent and math tutor, puts it well: “They’re changing math to make it math appreciation. A part of math is learning things that are not authentic to life.” He then opines that the CMF “does a disservice to historically marginalized student groups by offering them a simplified version of math that fails to prepare them for the challenges of a career in science, tech, engineering or math.” Finally, Malone correctly concludes: “Math is gonna be hard for students who don’t enjoy it as much.”
[Thank you, Captain Obvious.]
In a separate Cal Matters article, UC professor Svetlana Jitomirskaya expresses her exasperation by the decision of the authors of the CMF not to seek much input from from STEM experts who naturally have first-hand awareness of the level of mathematical maturity and training incoming undergrads must have. “The process should have definitely involved STEM faculty from top CA universities with direct knowledge of what is needed for success as STEM majors,” she emailed. “It is absurd this was not done.”
Jitomirskaya further criticizes the CMF for emphasizing “exploration at the expense of skills development,” and says there’s a “mountain of evidence that similar ideas have consistently failed when implemented at scale, and a rigorous approach — teaching students to back up answers with logic — is the only method known to decrease the [mathematics achievement] gap.”
This has been my own experience as a professional math educator for 45+ years. Sure, it would be nice if each student could reinvent the wheel, and in an ideal world, constructivism would be the best approach to take in teaching mathematics. In a very small class with a genius teacher, highly motivated and gifted students, and two math periods a day, constructivism could play a key role and be an important and highly productive part of the mix. But how many American math classrooms does this describe? As the professor points out, the constructivist idea doesn't scale. It's good in theory, bad in practice. Although both are important ideally, in reality, acquiring mathematical skill is more important than discovering mathematics.
Citing CMF-styled math exercises, Professor Jitomirskaya shows how these problems are illogical, poorly formed, and could introduce "a wrong idea of what it means to solve a problem — something that college professors struggle to undo."
Jitomirskaya states “It is irresponsible to make the entire state a laboratory for very controversial educational theories ..." and concludes that "Social justice, while desirable and necessary, will not come about by abandoning mathematical rigor."
I couldn't agree more. If one is concerned about upward mobility, getting good grades in math isn't what counts. What does count is having genuine mathematical skill and intuition, which cannot be developed simply by watering-down curricula so that struggling students are able to show better marks on their report cards. Masking problems doesn't make them go away. Pretending students are accomplished isn't helpful, and it isn't compassionate. Eventually, the rubber will actually hit the road. Again, quoting Tom Loveless: "The way you get social justice in mathematics is to teach the kids math."
Whatever one thinks of the "social justice" movement, math is still math and chemistry is still chemistry. The derivative of 6x^2 and the atomic weight of boron have nothing to do with “diversity, equity, and inclusion.”
If we're smart as a society, we'll make sure the horse precedes the cart.
-----
Copyright © 2006-present: Christopher R. Borland. All rights reserved.
