References cited in support for the new proposed math curriculum in California show that the foundation for the new proposed math curriculum includes a healthy mixture of CRT.
The educational controversy in Virginia over the use of Critical Race Theory to frame classroom instruction became a forest fire when it was revealed that the state superintendent of instruction had released guidance on using CRT materials in shaping classroom discussions. The Virginia school leadership refused to release any data on how often CRT was used in the classroom to direct student learning, but many parents across the state reported instances of such activity.
New York City’s incoming mayor, Eric Adams, will also face many of the same schoolroom problems as found in California: low performance of public schools in minority neighborhoods; segregation; attacks on excellence as racist; and resistance to expanding the use of objective standards to measure school performance. Adams sees schools as a key part of his anti-crime initiatives. “If we don’t educate, we will incarcerate,” he said in a recent mayoral debate.
Adams is a critic of critical policing theories, so he may be cautious about NYC proponents using Critical Race Theory in public schools. His approach is pragmatic, not theoretical. He promises that he plans to keep and expand the city’s gifted and talented program as an effective educational tool.
Some of New York City’s private schools have been embroiled in the controversy. Grace Church School has wholeheartedly embraced the tenets of Critical Race Theory. The school embraced an antiracist mission and periodically separated students by race, gender, and ethnicity. The “white group” would be educated to recognize their privilege and racist biases.
In February 2021, according to the New York Times, “Paul Rossi, a math teacher, and what the school called his ‘white-identifying’ group, met with a white consultant, who displayed a slide that named supposed characteristics of white supremacy. These included individualism, worship of the written word, and objectivity.
“Mr. Rossi said he felt a twist in his stomach. ‘Objectivity?’ he told the consultant, according to a transcript. ‘Human attributes are being reduced to racial traits.’
As you look at this list, the consultant asked, are you having ‘white feelings’? A school official reprimanded Mr. Rossi, accusing him of ‘creating a neurological imbalance’ in students,” Students and parents went into an uproar. This conflict has spread like fire through other elite private schools in the city.
The New York Times published today an article “California Tries to Close the Gap in Math, but Sets Off a Backlash.” notes that this debate about Critical Race Theory in the schools is not just some distraction about something not important.
“The California guidelines, which are not binding, could overhaul the way many school districts approach math instruction…The draft also suggested that math should not be colorblind and that teachers could use lessons to explore social justice…Even in heavily Democratic California — a state with six million public school students and an outsize influence on textbook publishing nationwide — the draft guidelines encountered scathing criticism, with charges that the framework would inject “woke” politics into a subject that is supposed to be practical and precise.”
“An open letter signed by hundreds of Californians working in science and technology described the draft as “an endless river of new pedagogical fads that effectively distort and displace actual math,” reports The Times.
As I read through the proposed curriculum framework, I am fascinated by much of the work presented. I picked up some interesting ideas on how to teach students in elementary through high school in the chapter on “Data Science.” I wish I had read this chapter before I did a guest lecturing spot to math students at Hillcrest High School in Jamaica, Queens!
There is also a lot of good stuff on defining the role of the teacher as a partner in discovery, using Stephen Curry stats to teach math, and so forth.
So, not everything is bad in this curriculum, but it is thrown into the shade by a relentless framing through the lenses of progressive ideas like Critical Race Theory that continually downs Whites and so-called White/Asian unemotional, unengaging culture.
Also, there is no clear data that backs up the advantage of this approach. A large proportion of the references cited in the “equity” section of the report are data deserts interspersed with overgrown opinion jungles.
Here is a sampling of the references from the Introduction to the “equity” part of the new curriculum. You judge for yourself what the slant is:
“Rethinking teaching and learning mathematics for social justice from a critical race perspective”
“Mathematics through the lens of social justice”
“Teaching for Excellence and Equity in Mathematics”
“Access to mathematics: “A possessive investment in whiteness”
“Mathematics Lessons to Explore, Understand, and Respond to Social Justice”
“Mathematics for equity: A framework for successful practice”
“Teaching Mathematics for Social Justice”
“Teaching and learning mathematics for social justice”
“Rethinking Mathematics: Teaching social justice by the numbers”
“Healing-informed social justice mathematics: Promoting students’ sociopolitical consciousness and well-being in mathematics class”
“The culture of exclusion in mathematics education and its persistence in equity-oriented teaching”
“Beyond missionaries or cannibals: Who should teach mathematics to African American children?”
“But good intentions are not enough: Preparing teachers to center race and poverty”
“High School Mathematics: Initiating Critical Conversations”
“Training the approximate number system improves math proficiency”
“Mathematics Framework.” Chapter 2: Teaching for Equity and Engagement. First Field Review Draft recommended for approval on May 19–20, 2021
California Department of Education, January 2021
