Mathematically Correct Headline
Mar. 20, 1996

Math Framework Revision to Begin

At a program sponsored by the San Diego Business Roundtable for Education, Mike McKeown of Mathematically Correct learned from Kathryn Dronenburg, California State School Board Member, that

A revision of the California Mathematics Framework will begin this summer
The attempt will be made to finish the revision within 18 months rather than the usual two years
The criteria are being revised for the textbook adoption which will occur two years from now

Although Mrs. Dronenburg was careful to point out that the State Board is not recommending any course of action for districts considering math adoptions at this time, it is clear that districts that are in doubt as to which books they want, or if they want any books from the state approved list, may want to delay until the new criteria are in place.

Mathematically Correct Headline
Apr. 2, 1996

Pieces of the California Math Puzzle

In California, various forces at the state level are having an influence on math curricula. Recent legislation, evidence collected in legislative hearings, and public reaction is often in conflict with the California Mathematics Framework, and yet programs based on this framework are recommended by the state for adoption by districts, as also required by law.

In a March 18, 1996 letter to County and District Superintendents, Delaine Eastin (State Superintendent of Public Instruction) and Yvonne W. Larsen (President, State Board of Education) address the confusion and concern in the counties and districts throughout the state. Their introduction states:

With the recent enactment of new legislation and recommendations made by the Mathematics Task Force, there has been some confusion about how these pieces fit together and are aligned with the 1992 California Mathematics Framework and the mathematics instructional resources that were adopted by the State Board of Education in 1994.

In particular, the conflict that arises is between the framework, together with the textbook adoption based on the framework, on one hand and AB170 and AB265 on the other. These two bills have become law and emphasize basic computational skills (AB170) and standards and assessment for basic skills (AB265). Some of this emphasis can also be found in the report of the Mathematics Task Force.

In developing a means to deal with this conflict, Eastin and Larsen note the following plans:

Program Advisory for Mathematics. An advisory is to be developed that defines a balanced mathematics program as called for in the Mathematics Task Force Report.
Follow-Up Adoption. A follow-up mathematics adoption will take place during the 1996-1997 school year.
Revision of Instructional Resources Evaluation Criteria. The Curriculum Development and Supplemental Materials Commission is now preparing a revision of the criteria used to evaluate mathematics instructional resources.
Revision of the Mathematics Framework. The State Superintendent and the State Board of Education have agreed that a revision of the 1992 Mathematics Framework will commence immediately.

The authors of this letter DO NOT make the mistake of pretending that there is no conflict. Instead, they continue to stress the theme of balance that became the buzzword following the Report of the Mathematics Task Force.

What are districts and individual schools to do in the mean time? Here are some excerpts from the letter:

Districts and schools should pursue efforts to imporve and enhance mathematics instruction even as a revised Mathematics Framework is being developed.
In evaluating instructional resources, ask whether they reflect the balance of basic skills, conceptual understanding, and problem solving...If not, consider ways of supplementing them with other resources.
If you have not yet selected new instructional resources in mathematics, remember that a follow-up adoption will be taking place during 1996-97 that may expand your choices.
All teachers need support as they implement new programs.
... it is vital that parents and the community participate in the development and improvement of the district mathematics program.

What does this mean for districts and individual schools? The implication is that each should make every possible effort to arrive at the best curriculum possible. One should expect that both the State Superintendent and the State Board would look with favor upon such actions. A long, careful evaluation of instructional materials, from both the state approved list and beyond it, seems indicated. Districts committed to quality in mathematics education should do no less.