By Kyndall Brown and Robin Wilson
As educators who have collectively spent 50-plus years of our lives on improving math teaching, we are normally pleased when math education gets attention in the newspapers. But a recent report from UC San Diego about declining math preparation has been a mixed blessing.
Crucially, the report puts a spotlight on gaps in students’ math learning—an issue that deserves attention, particularly in the wake of the pandemic, which widened disparities in students’ educational opportunities. However, in focusing on exclusionary admissions policies based on students’ prior math experiences, the report sheds limited light on what to do about this problem.
Research points to numerous promising teaching approaches, which our experiences have validated, but most of them have yet to be implemented at scale in California. Though we have spent our careers in different parts of the education system—Kyndall in K-12 public schools and Robin in public and private universities—our journeys as math educators highlight the importance of supporting teachers in improving their skills.
Shifting away from the traditional model of math instruction at the K-12 level
Kyndall’s career began on an emergency credential, with nothing but a bachelor’s degree in mathematics. He quickly realized that knowledge of mathematics was not enough to help students understand the content, availing himself of whatever professional development was available to learn education theory as well as teaching strategies—general ones and those specific to mathematics.
Decades of evidence tell us that the traditional model of mathematics instruction— “initiation-response-evaluation”—does not work for a majority of students. (US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2024). Since 2000, when the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics published the Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (PSSM), mathematics educators have been challenged to look not just at the content they are teaching, but also the strategies they are using to teach the content.
PSSM introduced the process standards, the “mathematical thinking, skills, and behaviors students should develop from prekindergarten through grade 12 to acquire a deep understanding of mathematics.” The idea behind these standards—Problem Solving, Reasoning and Proof, Communication, Connections, and Representation—is to support a move from teacher-driven, didactic forms of instruction toward more student-centered, collaborative ways of learning. The process standards were a precursor to the Common Core Standards for Mathematical Practice (SMP), which include:
- Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them.
- Reason abstractly and quantitatively.
- Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others.
Both the process standards and the SMP require teachers to make shifts in the ways they teach. But, more than ten years after the adoption of the Common Core State Standards, many teachers are still not implementing them. In a 2023 survey, EdWeek found that large majorities of K-12 and college math instructors felt that students should “master basics before problem solving,” some math topics “just need to be remembered,” and that for students to learn well, teachers need to “demonstrate what to do.”
These findings are consistent with what we see in many of the K-12 classrooms we visit across the state. Teachers are still lecturing for the majority of the class period. Students sit in rows and work independently, with few opportunities provided for problem-solving and critical thinking.
In order for students to engage in the Mathematical Practices, teachers need to incorporate investigation and exploration into their instruction. Students need to engage in discourse and dialogue to express their mathematical thinking. Just like other subjects, mathematics classes need to provide opportunities for students to read, write, listen, and speak.
The movement for change in math teaching at the college level
Efforts to improve math instruction should not stop at the college gate. Higher education institutions bear considerable responsibility for improving math education—for example, preparing teachers, conducting research on teaching practices, and setting standards for college readiness. As public institutions, UC and CSU campuses also have a responsibility to serve California students admitted to their institutions, even when those students are underprepared for college mathematics.
Don’t just take our word for it. Math associations, including the Mathematics Association of America and the Conference Board of Mathematical Sciences, support a nationwide transformation of classroom practices from the traditional college lecture to environments where students play an active role in the math classroom. It has been ten years since CBMS issued a call for “institutions of higher education, mathematics departments and the mathematics faculty, public policymakers, and funding agencies to invest time and resources to ensure that effective active learning is incorporated into post-secondary mathematics classrooms.” Institutions, such as the University of Georgia and Cal State-East Bay, have answered this call.
There is a growing movement among college and university faculty for changes in instructional practices at the college level. Significant research analyzing hundreds of studies has shown that students served by traditional lecture courses, which are prevalent in many universities, are “1.5 times more likely to fail than students in courses with active learning.”
In addition to active learning approaches, some institutions have been addressing concerns about students’ math performance with robust summer mathematics enrichment programs. George Mason’s Math Boot Camp program has contributed to an increase in placement test scores by an average of 59%. In fact, UCSD serves many incoming freshmen through its own math boot camp, but this strategy was not mentioned in its own report as part of the solution.
Nor are there signs that UCSD has considered other models for training its students. Whereas UCSD has been adding remedial courses, colleges, including the 23 CSU campuses, have replaced remedial courses with new models. “Stretch” models expose students to college-level content over two semesters instead of a faster-paced single semester. “Supplemental instruction” or “corequisite” approaches pair a traditional course, such as calculus, with additional just-in-time support. Rather than getting stuck in multiple remedial courses, which increase their chances of dropping out of college, students can start taking math courses that earn credit toward their STEM degrees and apply the math to problems in their fields.
The large number of students entering our colleges and universities who have been underserved in their prior math experiences offers a catalyst for institutions to find new ways to support the students who have, despite these challenges, met their standards for admission. Institutions have a responsibility to provide the students that they admit with the best possibilities for success, as UC campuses have long done.
Robin is a case in point. After struggling in calculus in high school, he took the class again at UC Berkeley with the benefit of the university's Emerging Scholars Program, which supported students in creating a sense of belonging in mathematics. He thrived in this environment, became a math tutor in the program, and went on to get a PhD in mathematics from UC Davis. Emerging Scholars Programs have become a national model for increasing the success of college students in first-year math and STEM courses.
Robin’s experience reflects the UC system’s historical asset-based approach to supporting all students accepted into their institutions and designing innovations to meet their needs. Kyndall, as a young teacher, attended a California Math Project (CMP) professional development institute at UCLA, where he began to deepen his content knowledge, improve his pedagogy, develop leadership, and build a network of professional colleagues—culminating 30 years later in his current role as executive director of CMP.
The UC system needs to build on these past successes as it seeks to meet the needs of all of its students. Students deserve something other than being weeded out by outdated instructional practices and policies designed to serve as gatekeepers. Instead of focusing on how to close doors recently cracked open by more inclusive admissions policies, we encourage universities to build bridges and pipelines for more students to access the benefits of a STEM degree, just as they did for us.
Dr. Kyndall Brown is Executive Director of the California Math Project, and Dr. Robin Wilson is professor of mathematics at Loyola Marymount University.
Dr. Kyndall Brown is Executive Director of the California Math Project.
Dr. Robin Wilson is professor of mathematics at Loyola Marymount University.
You can follow Dr. Kyndall Brown on:
You can follow Dr. Robin Wilson on: