The Twin Problems of Curriculum Modernization and Equity
By Dave Kung, Director of Policy, Charles A. Dana Center
Dave Kung
Math community, we have a problem.
Actually, we have two.
Our curriculum is woefully in need of updating. The college math curriculum in the US was largely designed to produce a small number of STEM professionals who could beat the Soviet Union to the moon, armed with pencils, paper, and room-sized computers. The challenges we now face require a much broader range of mathematics knowledge. Statistics is more important than ever—in nearly every field of study. We are awash in data, which requires different mathematical (and programming) tools to wrangle. And two years of a global pandemic has exposed the importance of quantitative literacy in society at large.
The mathematics community’s second problem is that our community continues to look very male and very white (and Asian) when compared to the rest of the population. The numbers don’t lie—and they are not pretty. Despite decades of work by dedicated people, women continue to make up less than 30% of new mathematics doctorates in the US, a percentage that has actually fallen over the last decade.
Our problem is even worse when it comes to race and ethnicity. According to recent census numbers, just over 18% of Americans identify as Hispanic or Latino, 12% as Black, and about 1% as Indigenous. Among undergraduate math majors, only 13.6% identified as coming from those groups combined. Among American doctoral recipients, only 8% identify as Black, Latino, or Indigenous. And math requirements (especially College Algebra) serve as a major roadblock to upwardly mobile Black and Brown students seeking two- and four-year degrees.
To be clear, these horrendous statistics are not the fault of students from these groups. Our educational systems are stacked against them. For instance, many top math departments draw most of their math majors from the group of students who already took Calculus in high school. But of all the US high schools that primarily serve Black and Latino students, only 33% even offer Calculus. In terms of economics, students from families in the richest quintile are five times more likely to take Calculus in high school than students from the bottom quintile (37% vs. 9%).
Though seemingly separate, the twin problems of an antiquated curriculum and lack of diversity are intimately connected. When STEM fields were updated in the 1950s and 1960s and Calculus became the singular focus, the explicit goal was to produce a small number of highly competent professionals—implicitly assumed to be mostly white men. In other words, the system we have inherited does exactly what it was designed to do.
Systemic Problems Require Systemic Solutions
In reshaping mathematics education, we must be careful to pay attention to both problems simultaneously. Systemic problems require systemic solutions. Attacking only one of these problems in isolation, as some have argued, might actually make the other problem worse.
For example, take the inequitable barrier of a College Algebra graduation requirement. Creating pathways like Quantitative Reasoning and Statistics, and making them available to high school students in dual enrollment courses, might provide many of those students a route to a college degree. But some of those students, many Black and Latino, would have made excellent mathematicians and STEM professionals! We certainly don’t want to create a math track that functions to keep minoritized students out of STEM. We want to let our students have all pathways and opportunities available to them. Updating our curricula without careful attention to which students take which paths risks making our diversity problem worse.
Conversely, programs like The Calculus Project and Uri Treisman’s Emerging Scholars workshops have been hugely successful at working within the current system, improving minoritized students’ success in the traditional path to Calculus. But what if those students make it through the current system but don’t build the statistics and data acumen needed for some of the fast-growing, high wage careers in the tech industry? Attention to equity within an outdated curriculum risks leaving high achieving minoritized students ill-prepared for tomorrow’s world.
Instead of treating these two problems as if they were unrelated, the way forward is to solve both problems simultaneously, updating our curricula to meet modern needs while also making sure each and every student has the opportunity to engage with whichever pathway best aligns with their aspirations—with the support needed to succeed.
That’s what we see beginning to happen across the country as states, systems, and institutions construct new math pathways and build attention to equity into the systems. At the recent CBMS Pathways Forum, teams from 18 states gathered to report on progress, share strategies, and learn from each other.
A deeper look at Georgia, Arkansas, and California
In Georgia, the University System of Georgia, Georgia Department of Education, and state and regional faculty and administrative leaders have worked strategically for over five years to improve student access to and success in well-aligned math pathways. Policies in Georgia have resulted in strong consistency in course taking patterns through the eleventh grade year.
Algebra II, now Advanced Algebra, is a required course for all Georgia students. Advanced Algebra was made more modern in the last standards revision cycle to include concepts like modeling, statistical reasoning, and foundational concepts for data science. Eighty-two percent of eleventh graders in Georgia take Advanced Algebra, compared to 14 other states that fall between 21% and 56% taking Algebra II in 11th grade. Advanced Algebra is also offered with corequisite supports for students who need it.
Additionally, Georgia requires four years of mathematics in high school and reported that 98 percent of twelfth graders take a mathematics course, as compared to 14 other states ranging from 56% to 87%. Because of these policy and curricula changes, all students have the opportunity to take a math course in twelfth grade that is college-aligned or college-level.
In Arkansas, students interested in humanities degrees now take Quantitative Literacy, a rigorous examination of the mathematics appropriate for their futures. The construction of the course included representatives from 4-year and 2-year systems, and leaders and faculty in K-12 systems are now aligning the Quantitative Literacy course content from high school to college.
Arkansas leaders are taking intentional steps to strategically smooth students’ transitions from one system to the next. Enrollments are regularly examined by race, and advisors and counselors are part of the continuous improvement cycles to ensure this new pathway equitably serves all students. Regional 9-16 Math Task Forces across Arkansas are building regional leaders to ensure expanded access and equitable implementation of the Quantitative Literacy pathways in high school, with 18% of twelfth graders currently enrolled in the course.
In California, the draft 2022 California Math Framework advises schools to pay increased attention to statistics and data science, but also dives into research on ways to structure K–12 mathematics classes so that all students can succeed. The curriculum imagined in that document would give proper preparation for future STEM professionals of all races and genders—while also providing the mathematics skills needed by those with other goals.
The framework encourages instructional writers and teachers to design prompts and experiences for students to notice and wonder (in mathematical and non-mathematical contexts) so that mathematics is then developed, and experienced by students, for a purpose. Modeling, data science, and statistics can leverage students’ interests in their communities and surroundings to increase their motivation to study mathematics.
Moving Ahead
In August of 1970, after Houston was informed of Apollo 13’s problems, a team of engineers had to simultaneously solve two problems: keeping the astronauts alive and returning the ship to Earth. The stakes were high: lives were at risk, the public hung its hopes on that team, and NASA’s credibility hung in the balance. The mathematics community’s twin problems of updating our curricula and addressing long-standing equity issues are no less daunting. In fact, the stakes are higher: our childrens’ education and livelihoods are at risk, economic and social progress are in limbo, and the mathematical sciences community’s credibility hangs in the balance.
Like NASA’s engineers, we must succeed in solving both of our problems. Working together to build on the progress in the states – while carefully attending to equity issues – we will build a more equitable mathematics education system that prepares each and every student for the 21st century.
Dave Kung leads the policy work at the Center, which includes in-depth policy analysis and the development of tools and briefs for systems, regions, and states. He also serves as Director of MAA Project NExT, a professional development program serving math faculty early in their careers.
The Charles A. Dana Center at The University of Texas at Austin works to ensure that all students—especially those who are Black, Latino, or are experiencing poverty—have access to an excellent, modern, math and science education. Dana Center Connections highlights different areas in the field where the mathematics community can make a difference in the lives of our nation's students.