What happens when antiquated governance structures confront innovative approaches to math education? A great deal of confusion and little benefit, according to panelists at a recent California legislative hearing that was scrutinizing recent admissions policies at the University of California.
The conversation highlighted the stark divide between two groups: the large numbers of K–12 math educators who are eager to adopt updated math content and teaching strategies and the university faculty who want to ensure that students’ math preparation prioritizes the canonical sequence of courses that prepare students for calculus.
These two sets of concerns need to be balanced in any decisions about math requirements, whether for high school graduation or college admissions. Equitable access to calculus is important, but so is access to advanced courses such as statistics and data science. Balancing those concerns in evidenced-based and transparent ways is hard to achieve with a structure that gives higher education faculty unusual say over the K–12 curriculum.
The hearing’s focus was the UC’s Board of Admissions and Relations With Schools (BOARS), a subcommittee of the system’s faculty senate. The university’s Board of Regents delegates the faculty to set requirements for admission to the 10-campus institution. Those requirements include the A–G courses, a prescribed pattern of courses that has extensive sway over the course offerings of California high schools.
“There is no other state in the nation that has a higher education body that both prescribes and approves the very content of specific courses for high school like the A–G courses,” said Linda Darling-Hammond, president of the State Board of Education and a professor emeritus at Stanford University, in her testimony.
Despite the board’s title, she said, “BOARS effectively has no relationship with schools. There is no governance or required consultative relationship with the K–12 system. It’s a very unique committee.”
Nor do BOARS’ policies have to be consistent with those adopted by the State Board of Education or the legislature, she added.
BOARS’ influence is considered so great that Al Muratsuchi, chair of the Assembly Higher Education Committee, mused, “Who is really in charge of California’s K–12 high school curriculum? The K–12 system or the University of California?”
Kyndall Brown, executive director of the California Math Project, added, “Many of my colleagues are concerned about the extraordinary power of BOARS to make decisions which affect millions of students but that has no representation from … the very K–12 schools they claim to be having relations with.”
16 months of confusion
The speakers’ frustrations centered on BOARS’ review of its Area C math requirements. That review resulted in a 16-month morass over the status of high school courses such as data science and statistics for students applying to public universities in California.
“If I’m confused with all of these briefing materials, I can only imagine what our average high school student is thinking,” Muratsuchi noted. “What I’m hearing overall is that the decision-making was largely within the confines of faculty members, of academics.”
It has been relatively clear since a faculty committee met in July 2023 that existing data science courses would no longer count toward the three years of math needed to be considered for admission to UC. But confusion has abounded over related questions. These have included the status of other non–algebra-intensive courses such as statistics and computer science, whether such courses (and which of them) would count toward the recommended fourth year of math, and whether data science and other courses would be considered math courses at all for purposes of admission.
Until October, when a UC matriculation office finally published a clarification of the new policies, K–12 educators’ questions and concerns about how to engage today’s students in mathematics for the future largely went unanswered, they said.
“In today’s landscape, data science, data literacy, and AI foundations have a place in the preparation of K–12 students. Some of this important math exists in our standards today, but it’s often deprioritized,” Aly Martinez of Student Achievement Partners told the committee, noting national declines in student performance on tests of data skills and statistics.
“We really need to rethink the current hierarchy of advanced courses,” said Martinez. “We are operating broadly with outdated assumptions that need to be replaced with new definitions that recognize modern math in new courses as well as in existing courses.”
Darling-Hammond agreed. “We’re in the middle of these huge generational changes that will require us to respond to a rapidly changing economy. Studies estimate that 20 to 30 percent of jobs between now and 2030 are likely to disappear or be radically redesigned because of AI. … There will be more and more jobs across different vocations and occupations that will require data science skills and elements of computer science. But fewer than half of California high schools even offer computer science. Only one-third of California high schools that serve large numbers of students of color and low-income students even offer computer science.”
In October, it was made clear that UC is giving a green light for courses such as computer science, statistics, data science, and discrete math to be counted as fourth-year math courses, particularly for students who are not preparing to take a calculus course. However, the chaotic process preceding that clarification was not without costs. Speakers stressed that the initial hasty July 2023 decision followed by more than a year of deliberations over how to define and communicate the new policy—and set criteria for third- and fourth-year Area C math courses—caused widespread confusion for schools.
“While I do not believe it was the intention of the committee, this unexpected move served as a catalyst for the confusion experienced by students, families, and California districts, leaving many to interpret the new position with flimsy guidance,” noted Cole Sampson, chief curriculum officer for Kern County, also a panelist.
Just one indication of the confusion: Even though BOARS’ decision has yet to take effect—and even though data science courses are still valid as fourth-year math options (particularly for students who are not considering STEM majors and therefore do not need to prepare for calculus)—data science enrollments across the state are down by around 50 percent, with school districts such as San Diego’s pausing their programs, according to this blog’s sources.
In the future, averting such outcomes requires several steps:
The new BOARS chair, Deborah Swenson, noted that the problem the committee sought to address was growing enrollments of students in data science courses in lieu of Algebra II. That does not explain, however, why the committee overstepped in its initial suggestion that such courses would not be acceptable even for students who took Algebra II.
Swenson conceded that there had not been direct consultation with K–12 leaders. However, the decision was “highly informed by instruction in K–12 and the strong desire to be sure it would support students coming to CSU, UC, or any other university,” she said.
Unfortunately, those desires are not being realized due to the problematic process that was undertaken. Let’s hope that BOARS takes considerable steps to clear up the widespread confusion about this decision and changes its processes in the future to ensure K–12 consultation, transparency, and evidence-based decision-making.
For more insights on the role of math in ensuring educational equity, subscribe to Just Equations’ newsletter.
