Math Education and “Divisive Concepts”
By Michael Pearson
I suppose it should be no surprise that mathematics education has become yet another flash point in our interminable culture wars. Recently (on January 15, 2022), the newly-elected governor of Virginia issued his first executive order of the year, verbosely titled ENDING THE USE OF INHERENTLY DIVISIVE CONCEPTS, INCLUDING CRITICAL RACE THEORY, AND RESTORING EXCELLENCE IN K-12 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN THE COMMONWEALTH, in which, along with the now-common rejection of (a mischaracterization of) critical race theory and “political indoctrination,” one can find listed among thirteen largely performative statements, item 8: The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall end the Virginia Math Pathways Initiative.
This directive comes without context, but one can only surmise that there is a connection between this action and the work of such groups as Parents Defending Education, whose vice president of strategy and investigations, Asra Nomani, was quoted as saying of the Virginia Pathways Initiative, "It's illogical, harmful and counterproductive to advancing education among our youth. This effort to call math 'racist' is a national phenomenon of critical race theory ideologues who are hijacking our country's schools. The proposed Virginia Math Pathways Initiative is a road to nowhere. With it, Virginia educrats are competing in a race to the bottom."
To say that this is a mischaracterization of the Math Pathways initiative is an understatement. Those involved in developing the Virginia initiative were motivated in part by the work of the Dana Center at UT-Austin,. That work is being done by well-informed professionals, based on expertise and experience, and designed to improve educational outcomes for all students. A recent report from Just Equations focuses on the disparities in students’ experiences and documents the ways the current emphasis on calculus as the key gateway course shortchanges the majority of high school students.
And the evidence provides compelling motivation for pursuing the kinds of changes the Pathways initiatives support. The goal should not be controversial: to better-prepare all students for postsecondary mathematics, essential to the broader goal of broadening access to STEM careers.
Far too few students, from all backgrounds, succeed at college-level mathematics, which in turn stops them from completing an undergraduate degree. The current rate of success in postsecondary mathematics is poor across all demographic sectors, but is markedly worse for historically marginalized groups (including women). There are no easy solutions, and no one-size-fits-all solution, but, as the 2015 MAA report, A Common Vision for Undergraduate Mathematical Sciences Programs in 2025, stated, the status quo is unacceptable.
Just as those of us in higher education are taking steps to modernize our curriculum and our pedagogical practices (see the 2015 CUPM Curriculum Guide and the Instructional Practices Guide, both from MAA), we need multi-faceted approaches to make similar changes in K-12 mathematics programs. As the old saying attributed to Albert Einstein goes, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.”
These changes will not be easy or fast. The US does not have a single system of education, but a patchwork of systems with many centers of control and influence. Making progress will require collaboration and a willingness to step outside our comfort zones, and ultimately for citizens to commit to substantial reallocations of resources to build more-equitable systems.
The reality is that the governor of Virginia, as well as others involved in similar efforts to constrain educators, have simply chosen a set of divisive concepts and a model of political indoctrination that suits their political agenda. This is made explicit in a subsequent list of “inherently divisive concepts.” In that list, we find that we are now prohibited from considering the possibility that “meritocracy or traits, such as a hard work ethic, are racist or sexist or were created by a particular race to oppress another race.”
The controversy in Virginia is eerily similar to that over the proposed math framework in California, which have drawn similar sorts of criticisms. Regardless of the purported motivations of those who are attempting to defend the existing system, these sorts of criticisms are ill-founded, and in my view are less about advancing educational goals for all students, and more about protecting the privilege of those who have succeeded within the current deeply inequitable system.
I’ve written about meritocracy and the challenges to broadening access to opportunities presented by current systems of assessment. The economist Robert Frank’s 2016 book Success and Luck: Good Fortune and the Myth of Meritocracy presents compelling arguments that a belief in meritocracy is not only false: it’s bad for you. This is not to suggest that there is no such thing as excellence, or that competition is inherently problematic. Unfortunately, the current toxic “defense” of the meritocracy has largely devolved to a defense of social Darwinism, and an attempt to protect existing power structures.
The Virginia executive order proclaims, “the foundation of our educational system should be built on teaching our students how to think for themselves. Virginia must renew its commitment to teaching our children the value of freedom of thought and diversity of ideas.” I am all for freedom of thought and diversity of ideas. Unfortunately, those aims are undermined by the limitations against “divisive concepts” imposed in the same document.
Current efforts aimed at curtailing the free discussion of such ideas, or the methodologies scholars use to understand our complicated history and current challenges, are not aimed at improving the education of our children, but rather a misguided attempt to protect our innocents, and worse, to indoctrinate all children with a distorted view of history, economics, and politics—and ultimately to place science and mathematics firmly in a supporting role for the existing regime.
As professionals within the mathematical sciences, of course we should be concerned with the quality and intellectual integrity of curricula at all levels. I am glad that we have colleagues who have engaged in the kinds of dialogues with teachers and policymakers to effectively participate in the hard work of reconsideration of existing structures.
I think it’s also important to note that much of the existing algebra/calculus regime is a result of curricular compression—pushing what was once considered college mathematics into the secondary curriculum in order to accommodate more advanced mathematics in the undergraduate program. Arguments against programs like the various pathways-inspired approaches miss the point that to improve student outcomes, we need to support rather than attack our colleagues who work in the K-12 curriculum space, while undertaking a serious modernization of the undergraduate program as well, so that the long-outdated calculus-as-gatekeeper model can be replaced by more-flexible pathways that serve a broader set of educational goals. A recent statement on mathematics pathways from AMATYC amplifies the need for change to meet the needs of the students we serve.
Rather than taking the easy path of criticism of still-evolving programs of curricular improvement at the K-12 level, MAA members can and should serve as examples by supporting curricular revision—and experimentation—for undergraduate mathematics. These efforts will never be perfect or complete. But it will be easier for our students to forgive our mistakes and work with us to advance their own mathematical education if they see us as partners in exploring new frontiers, rather than relying on Sputnik-era curricular orthodoxies. Many of us are already doing that work. Engage with them to understand their efforts. Support experimentation and development of new curricular and pedagogical paradigms.
To do otherwise is to, unwittingly or not, lend comfort and solace to the challenges to academic freedom being pursued by those who recognize that a well-educated population presents challenges to their status within the existing power structure.
Michael Pearson has served as the Executive Director for the Mathematical Association of America (MAA) since 2012. Prior to joining the staff at MAA in 2002, he served on the faculty at Florida International University (1989-1992) and Mississippi State University (1992-2002).