Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
Support the Peninsula’s only locally-owned newspaper. Subscribe!
Subscribing annually brings you big savings. We also offer monthly and weekly subscriptions.
Premium Subscription
As low as $8.25 per week
Premium Includes:
-- Access to the Daily Journal’s e-Edition: a digital replica of our daily newspaper including crossword puzzles, games, comics, classifieds and ads. You can download a digital replica of the Daily Journal for offline reading. You can also clip & download articles or images from the e-edition to share with others The most recent 90 issues are available at any given time.
-- Unlimited access to our award-winning online content
-- Commenting access on all stories as a valued member of the DJ community
-- NEW! Access to our online-only digital crossword puzzle. A new puzzle every day, seven days a week!
Support the Peninsula’s only locally-owned newspaper. Subscribe!
Subscribing annually brings you big savings. We also offer monthly and weekly subscriptions.
DJ Basic Subscription
As low as $5 per month
Basic includes:
-- Unlimited access to our award-winning online content
-- Commenting access on all stories as a valued member of the DJ community
What you're missing -- Additional features available only with the Premium level:
-- Access to the Daily Journal’s e-Edition: a digital replica of our daily newspaper including crossword puzzles, games, comics, classifieds and ads. You can download a digital replica of the Daily Journal for offline reading. You can also clip & download articles or images from the e-edition to share with others The most recent 90 issues are available at any given time.
-- NEW! Access to our online-only digital crossword puzzle. A new puzzle every day, seven days a week!
The state of California is at the global forefront of technological innovation and artistic inspiration. It’s also a powerhouse economy in its own right, currently the fifth largest in the world. We might expect — we should expect — such a place to deliver a world-class education to the 6 million public school students in its charge.
This is not the picture that emerges from the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress. These assessments found fewer than a quarter of California eighth graders performing at or above the “proficient” level in math. This represents both a decline from the state’s previous NAEP performance and a significant undershooting of the national average performance for eighth grade math.
But the good news is that California is on the verge of a major education opportunity: The State Board of Education is scheduled to adopt new math curriculum in 2025, and high-quality instructional materials are a powerful, proven lever for improving student outcomes in math.
The magnitude of this opportunity was made clear in a recent, California-focused report from the Center for Education Market Dynamics. My partners and I co-founded this nonprofit in 2020 to investigate, illuminate and help improve the murky national curriculum landscape. Our research indicates that 62% of California districts in our sample have in place a math curriculum from the state’s 2014 adoption list for elementary school, and 76% for middle school.
Recommended for you
The continued dominance of these curricula in California is not, on its face, a happy finding. It suggests that millions of the state’s most vulnerable students are saddled with past-generation math textbooks that do not reflect the important curriculum innovations and improvements of recent years. But it also means that state influence is real in California, and it’s big: many, many districts today, 10 years after the last adoption, are still waiting for that state signal to select new math curriculum — even though they don’t have to, as state adoption is nonbinding. California districts are ripe, ready and hungry for state leadership on this front.
State education leaders must leverage this upcoming adoption to vigorously encourage publishers to develop high-quality, innovative math curriculum for California’s public schools — and to relentlessly support its uptake and implementation in districts. In the decade since the last adoption, several big demographic shifts have accelerated in the state’s public schools, including an upsurge of English learners (students who are Hispanic/Latino now make up an outright majority, or 56%, of California public school students) and students experiencing poverty (60% of California public school students receive free and reduced-price meals). These students are not exceptional cases, but the mainstay and the heart of the California public school system. And they need the absolute best that the contemporary education market can deliver regarding math curriculum.
What would that look like? We might see, for example, math curriculum that’s aligned to research-based quality criteria; that intentionally incorporates the best instructional practices for students learning English; that builds systematically underserved students’ executive functioning skills alongside their math skills; and that leverages leading-edge digital technology to engage students and provide just-in-time support to those who are struggling (disclosure: I’m on the boards of both AERDF and Zearn). There’s no shortage of brilliant research and development efforts happening in the world of math curriculum. And state education leaders in California are, right now, in the unique position to bring this innovation to bear in real ways on their students’ math experience.
California must get this adoption right. Because when it comes to curriculum, what happens in California ultimately ripples across the country. The need is acute, nationwide, for more effective teaching and learning in math — for this generation of students to grow up without giving up on it. Better math curriculum will help us get there, and the state of California can help lead the way.
Jeff Livingston is co-founder of the Center for Education Market Dynamics, a nonprofit K-12 market intelligence organization dedicated to improving academic outcomes for underserved students by expanding the adoption and use of high-quality teaching and learning solutions.
What strikes me is that guys like this always seem to defer to underserved communities that need help. What they need is motivation, no matter what educational system is used. Interesting enough, by generically mention underserved, he really means students of color as if the countries from which their forefathers came consist only of dummies. I know personally many folks of color who are smarter than I will ever be, have advanced degrees and should be insulted by the generalization espoused by these educators. Go to Malaysia, El Salvador, Nigeria and one will see educational brilliance using the old methods without fancy interference. Last I looked these are also people of color, however insulting it must sound for them.
Ok, I read these 600+ words and still have no idea how this “new” math curriculum is going to help. I read a lot of fancy words trying to push a curriculum but where are some tangible results. Is this Common Core 2.0 (or whatever the next iteration is)? How does it compare to the old math curriculum? Seems to me this is a continued effort to reinvent the wheel, although these wheels, based on performance, are running half inflated when we could resort to the “old” textbooks and have students rolling along to bigger and better things. Or is Mr. Livingston saying educators, of late, aren’t up to the task of teaching all students? And Common Core is a common failure to our students?
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(2) comments
What strikes me is that guys like this always seem to defer to underserved communities that need help. What they need is motivation, no matter what educational system is used. Interesting enough, by generically mention underserved, he really means students of color as if the countries from which their forefathers came consist only of dummies. I know personally many folks of color who are smarter than I will ever be, have advanced degrees and should be insulted by the generalization espoused by these educators. Go to Malaysia, El Salvador, Nigeria and one will see educational brilliance using the old methods without fancy interference. Last I looked these are also people of color, however insulting it must sound for them.
Ok, I read these 600+ words and still have no idea how this “new” math curriculum is going to help. I read a lot of fancy words trying to push a curriculum but where are some tangible results. Is this Common Core 2.0 (or whatever the next iteration is)? How does it compare to the old math curriculum? Seems to me this is a continued effort to reinvent the wheel, although these wheels, based on performance, are running half inflated when we could resort to the “old” textbooks and have students rolling along to bigger and better things. Or is Mr. Livingston saying educators, of late, aren’t up to the task of teaching all students? And Common Core is a common failure to our students?
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.