Let’s start with the TL;DR in hopes that you will actually read this blog post: Moving forward CALCULUS is the lowest math course that can be offered to students entering with a STEM-related academic goal.
Do I have your attention? Read on…
In the spirit of vertical alignment, I thought I would share some important information that directly impacts our high schools and community colleges. If you don’t work with either of these two communities, then you are welcome to skip this blog post!
Up until recently, it was common for students entering community college to take some sort of mathematics placement test. Since only 11% of our 11th graders in Merced County meet or exceed the grade-level expectations on the CAASPP assessment, a great many of those students were assigned into non-transferable prerequisite math courses. Essentially…remedial courses.
This practice was done out of compassion for the mathematically struggling students. Why, the thinking goes, place students into math courses they were not adequately prepared for? Placing students into remedial math courses, the thinking went, provides students with the prerequisite math concepts that will ultimately lead to success once they finally make it into the transfer-level courses.
Well, in the words of Winston Churchill who said, “However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results”, subsequent research into the strategy of placing students into remedial courses shows that students who took remedial math and English classes often got stuck in those classes and were virtually certain to NOT finish their degrees.
AB 1705 to the “rescue”
In September of 2022, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 1705 which went into full effect starting in 2024 and will be fully phased in by Fall, 2025. AB 1705 sets into motion changes that severely restrict the ability of community colleges to offer remedial math and English courses. The legislation creates new rules that mostly prevent colleges from offering remedial courses that can’t be used toward transfer to four-year universities. A key provision of AB 1705 that seems to strike me as the most pressing challenge is that it essentially prohibits community colleges from placing students into a math course lower than Calculus for students with a STEM-related academic goal.
That’s right…Calculus is the LOWEST math course that can be offered for students with a STEM-related academic goal! CALCULUS!
Students entering non-STEM programs will have only College Algebra as the first math course they can take.
There is significant evidence that eliminating the requirement that students take numerous prerequisite remedial course prior to finally enrolling into transfer-level courses significantly improves student outcomes…including the likelihood transferring to CSU/UC.
Some community colleges are putting on a brave face by framing AB 1705 positively because students are required to take fewer math courses…since remedial courses are no longer offered. Meanwhile colleges are already phasing out their pre-calculus course offerings.
What are STEM-related fields?
Truthfully, this part surprised me because “STEM-related fields” encompasses far more majors than I had originally thought. I contacted academic counselors at both Merced College and Modesto Junior College to ask which academic goals are directly impacted by AB 1705. An academic counselor from MJC sent me this list of 13 academic goals, in which Calculus is the initial math courses student must take at their school.
- Anthropology
- Biology
- Chemistry
- Computer Science
- Geography
- Geology
- Mathematics
- Physics
- Public Health Science
- Biological Sciences
- Chemistry
- Computer Science
- Engineering
Assuming MC is following a similar plan, their calculus-mandated subjects are…
- Biology
- Biotechnology
- Chemistry
- Computer Aided Design/3D Modeling
- Computer Science
- Computer Tech And Information Systems
- Geology
- Engineering
- Mathematics
- Physics
I’m still waiting to hear back from the colleges whether the Agriculture Sciences are included in the STEM fields.
The Gap Between High School and Junior College
California Education Code states the minimum graduation requirement for mathematics is “Complete at least two courses in mathematics in grades 9 to 12 inclusive. One or a combination of these courses must meet or exceed the rigor of the content standards of Algebra I or Mathematics I.” This means that a student might graduate high school and intend to enroll at a junior college having only completed up to Integrated Math II. (Technically it is even possible to graduate having only completed the equivalent of Integrated Math I.)
So…as I currently understand AB 1705, students transitioning to junior college may be lacking TWO (possibly three) necessary courses prior to the Calculus they must take.
In talks with high school students a common plan they have for themselves is to take the minimum amount of math courses in HS because “they are just going to the community college and then they will transfer to a CSU or UC.” It seems AB 1705 creates an enormous math gap between HS and CC making this pathway unlikely to be successful.
What might high schools do?
At the top of this blog I shared that only 11% of our 11th graders are meeting or exceeding grade-level math standards. Therefore, we might start by thinking critically about how to raise this percentage. Perhaps require three or even four years of mathematics which might include statistics, data science, and/or a rigorous approach to financial algebra. These are useful for ALL graduating high school students regardless of their post-high school plans.
We also might consider putting into serious practice the suggestions found in the revised 2023 California Mathematics Framework. I’m thinking especially implementing suggestions found in chapters 2, 3, 4, 8, and 9.
- Chapter 2: Teaching for Equity and Engagement(DOCX)
- Chapter 3: Number Sense(DOCX)
- Chapter 4: Exploring, Discovering, and Reasoning With and About Mathematics(DOCX)
- Chapter 8: Mathematics: Investigating and Connecting, High School(DOCX)
- Chapter 9: Structuring School Experiences for Equity and Engagement(DOCX)
Wrapping this up, my understanding of AB 1705 is in its nascent stages and is certainly going to change as I continue to learn. I will continue to edit this post accordingly.
.
.
.
This is another example of good intentions not leading to the desired result. I have been a middle school math teacher (18 years), high school math teacher including AP Calculus (12 years) and part-time/adjunct teacher at two local community colleges (10 years). The last 21 years all in the Central Valley of California.
This will immediately lead to incoming community college students changing to non-STEM majors. It is hard enough to get our more prepared high school students to even take the more rigorous math courses, especially as Seniors. The students will take the path of least resistance. I have seen this even more apparent post-Covid. I remember the good intentions of Algebra 1 for all in 8th grade by an abysmal policy overall and especially for our lower prepared students. This will affect low-income, minority students disproportionately. Having come from this population myself, I think this movement has been almost a virtue signaling that the progressives/leadership in California “really care” about the underachieving students.
I predict this will lead to less prepared students in our communities who will need additional time/support/cost in the post-secondary level to realistically be able to pursue STEM careers. With the structure of community college and university learning landscape, the students will not receive what they need to be successful. These policies are actually pushing me to reconsider the field of math education.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment, Felix! Assuming AB 1705 is implemented as anticipated, I suspect you are correct that ill-prepared incoming community college students will change away from the STEM fields. As evidence shows, relying on sending those STEM-hopefuls into a series of remedial classes does not have a high success rate for getting those students into four-year institutions. While we are hoping for a change-of-heart regarding the implementation of AB1705, I’m wondering what the K-12 community might do in the meantime to ensure a pipeline that sends a higher percentage of students who ARE prepared for Calculus.
This is quite the conundrum.