Did the University of California try to bury a consequential vote on math?
"We do not get to rewrite what took place."
My last story of 2023 is yet another dispatch from the math wars.
By way of background: Back in July, I wrote a few stories about a little-known faculty committee at the University of California that sets admissions policies. This committee had been debating the merits of popular high-school courses labeled as “data science,” which, for a few years now, the UC system has accepted as a substitute for the second year of algebra.
Algebra II is a cornerstone of math education, one with a historically high failure rate among students, disproportionately those who are Black and Latino — and also one that STEM professors and professionals say is 100% critical for anyone who wants, or might ever possibly want, to take college-level math. Data-science courses have recently been promoted as an alternative to algebra II, including in California, but there are no widely accepted standards for what math they should teach. If students don’t learn the concepts traditionally imparted in algebra II by the end of high school, the concern goes, when will they learn them? (For more on this highly contentious subject, check out these stories.)
The UC admissions committee met on July 7. A few days later, citing internal emails and people who attended the meeting, I reported that the members had unanimously voted to disqualify currently approved data-science courses from substituting for algebra II. But at the time, the group itself did not publicly disclose this vote. I asked the UC media relations office to confirm and to comment. The statement sent to me, and multiple other reporters, did not acknowledge that the vote had happened.
This struck me as odd.
Wanting to learn more about what was happening, I filed a public records request for emails exchanged among the committee in the days after the meeting. The UC system took months to respond, and when it finally did, it redacted several emails and attachments. (It also denied my request for a recording of the meeting.)
Fortunately, an attorney helped us pry loose some of the key material. Based on that, I was able to report that multiple members felt that the chair of the group was burying their vote, right when the California Board of Education needed to know about it. (This characterization is strongly disputed by the chair, who says that she did not think the vote was implementable as phrased.)
“Barbara, I think it would be dishonest to delete the language regarding the vote and withhold this information from the communication to the state Board of Education. We do not get to rewrite what took place.”
“I ask that you ensure all public communications clearly, openly, unequivocally, and immediately convey this unanimous BOARS decision.”
“If BOARS does not inform [the state Board of Education] about Friday’s vote and the additional problems with the [framework] language, then we are complicit in misleading California high-school students and creating barriers to their success as potential UC students.”
“I want to emphasize that it would truly be of grave consequence if we send a statement to the state Board of Education that misrepresents the content of a two-part vote.”
“In light of the apparent disagreement over how to interpret what was voted on, I would like to request a copy of the minutes and request that they not be formally approved — and the recording of the meeting not be deleted — without the consent of all BOARS members who were in attendance at Friday’s meeting.”
You can read the full story here for free by making an account with your email. I’ll be continuing to follow the math wars in the new year, so send me your tips and ideas: stephanie.lee@chronicle.com.
Happy holidays and see you in 2024!