In the name of “equity”, California DOE’s 2021 Mathematics Framework attacks the idea of gifted students and eliminates opportunities for accelerated math.

- no grouping students by ability
- no Algebra for 8th graders
- no Calculus for high schoolers
Why does CA DOE want to eliminate “gifted programs” for “high achieving students”?

Here’s what they say:

“In California in 2004-2014, 32% of Asian American students were in gifted programs, compared with 8% of White students, 4% of Black students, and 3% of Latinx students”
California’s DOE justifies eliminating calculus for high schoolers because “only” 19% of high school calculus students end up taking math classes beyond calculus in college.

But how many high school AP English Literature students end up taking advanced literature in college?
This attack on opportunities for public school students to take advanced math is the result of a once every 7 years review of math curriculum.

I encourage you to read the 2021 proposal for yourself.

Then submit comments to
Mike Malione, of Piedmont Advanced Learners Program, offers a more on-depth analysis and critique of the 2021 Math Framework:…
The California 2021 Math Framework says grouping students by ability in math is “inequitable” and points to studies showing that

when all students are required to take the same math courses, the results are more equal!
California 2021 Math Framework:

“districts and schools must confront the structural inequities of tracking and ability grouping, and to strengthen their efforts to support all students learning along a common pathway”

Moving faster is prohibited.
All must take the same path.
“The inequity of mathematics tracking in California can be undone through a coordinated approach”

“Unfortunately, many students, parents and teachers encourage acceleration beginning in grade 8... out of mistaken beliefs that Calculus is an important high school goal”
The California 2021 Math Framework has not yet been adopted.

On May 19-20, the Instructional Quality Commission (IQC) will meet again to propose a revised draft.

You can submit public comment via email to

More info here:
SORRY! Typo in the email address for comments.

Follow on thread. 🧵

Since I posted this, there has been some debate about the 3 statements at the top:

- no grouping students by ability
- no Algebra for 8th graders
- no Calculus for high schoolers

Let me address each of these in turn.
“No grouping students by ability”

Chapter 7 (Grades 6 to 8) of the 2021 Math Framework clearly calls for an end to tracking, grouping students by ability and accelerated curriculum.
More Chapter 7

“The inequity of mathematics tracking in California can be undone through a coordinated approach in grades 6-12”

“Middle school students are best served in heterogeneous classes” - ie classes not separated by ability.
“No Algebra for 8th graders”

First, this should say “No Algebra I for 8th graders.”

But continuing in Chapter 7, we see the framework defending the rigor of California Common Core standard curriculum for what is currently known as Math 7, Math 8, Math I and Math II.
Now, as many parent with kids in California public middle school and public high school knows, Math 7 (7th grade) and Math 8 (8th grade math) are frequently combined into one “Enhanced Math 7/8” class for advanced math students to take in 7th grade, followed by Enh Math I in 8th.
If you don’t take Math I in 8th grade, you are not on course to take Calculus by 12th grade.

Chapter 7 of the 2021 Math Framework would not allow you to accelerate Math 8 into the combined “Math 7/8” course, or accelerate the Math I course into 8th grade.
Chapter 8 (high school) again says students should take common core Math 8 in 8th grade and Math I in high school.

It says acceleration of Math I in 8th grade comes from “incorrect conclusions that Calculus is an important high school goal”

Then it contradicts itself ...
Right after saying Calculus should not be a goal, the framework waves a wand to declare that an entire year of pre-calculus students currently take is not actually necessary for calculus.

Then immediately repeats that “the push to Calculus in grade twelve is itself misguided”
So does it allow calculus for high schoolers?

It pretends to allow it. But it disallows the grade 7/8 acceleration needed to have time for pre-calc.

Then it sandwiches a statement that pre-calc is unnecessary between two statements that high schoolers shouldn’t take calculus.
I think that is a formula for the supposed “Calculus & Trig” course to be a glorified pre-calculus course, not AP Calculus.

Which the authors of the framework would say is fine, because they don’t think you should take calculus until college.
In any case,’this framework would be highly objectionable for abolishing enhanced/accelerated math classes until grade 11 - even if you think it does not de facto eliminate high school calculus.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Steve Miller

Steve Miller Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @SteveMillerOC

26 Oct 20
Stay safe fellow Irvine residents!

Don’t travel north of Portola Blvd and 133. Orchard Hills under non-mandatory evacuation.

Air quality is more breathable south of Sand Canyon.
Read 4 tweets
21 Oct 20
Race-based college admissions discriminate against Asian American children and have either no effect or actually benefit white students.

That is why rich white guys like this can support it to signal their virtue, while pushing down others not like themselves based on race.
Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Radford favor race-based admissions. But their study showed that at competitive public universities, the racial bias AGAINST Asian applicants relative to whites was as strong as the bias in favor of black students.…
Espenshade found an Asian American had to score MUCH higher than a white student on the ACT to have equal chance of admission.

But, as an advocate of race-based admissions, he denied this proved a racial bias against Asians because Asians might be inferior on “soft variables”. Image
Read 11 tweets
24 Jun 20
The California legislature has now voted to strike these words from our state

“The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.”

I’m speechless.
If you want to prevent this from being ratified by voters in November, San Diego Asian Americans for Equality is leading the fundraising campaign for the coalition opposing #ACA5.

To stop #ACA5, donate here:…
You can join the campaign to prevent this state constitutional amendment #ACA5 and preserve equal rights for all individuals under California law regardless of race or gender by joining Californians For Equal Rights.

Join the campaign here:
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!