Assembly Standing Committee on Education

Good morning, and I want to welcome everyone to the joint oversight hearing of the Assembly Higher Education and Education Committee today. Whether you're here watching and in person or watching virtually. Thank you so much for your participation. Please note that all materials for this hearing can be accessed online at

www.ahed.Assembly.CA.gov hearings I want to go over some hearings, go over some key elements of the structure of today's oversight hearing. We have a few different options for public testimony today in the hearing room, and you can also submit written comments when we reach the public comment portion of the agenda.

I would ask that any Members of the public here in the room approach the microphone and form a line. You can exit the hearing once you finish testifying, or you can return to your seat. Witnesses who are unable to physically attend the hearing today can submit written comments via the legislative portal.

Please note that any written testimony transmitted is considered public comment and may be read into the record. Once again, thank you so much to Olivia for joining us here today. We know the value of obtaining a college degree in today's society is not to be underestimated.

Recently, the Public Policy Institute of California found that the job market increasingly rewarded workers who were educated with bachelor's degrees, and workers who had bachelor's degrees earned a salary of more than 62% when compared to those with just a high school diploma.

However, post secondary education attainment does not begin the moment a student walks onto the college campus, nor does it begin with the admissions process. A student's journey to a bachelor's degree begins early on during the Administration of President Obama.

President Obama impressed upon a k-12 educational system to better prepare America's children for college and the workforce with the creation of college readiness. The vision was to maximize opportunities for high school students to obtain successful careers by ensuring that every student has some level of college and career readiness.

This vision has been echoed by California and the current Administration with historical investments in higher education, career and college attainment, and workforce development. Ensuring California graduates are better prepared for the rigors of college academia has long been a collaborative effort between k-12 and post secondary education. Neither can nor should operate in a silo.

In a perfect world, k-12 and post secondary education should work together, respecting each other's unique responsibilities to produce an informed and educated workforce. Collaboration, alignment, and shared goals between k 12 and higher education institutes are fundamental requirements in providing opportunities for our high school students to acquire the necessary education to fill the mission requirements for post secondary education.

California has long achieved the shared goal and vision with the creation of the A to G requirements, colloquially known as A to G, are the 15 courses spanning seven subject areas each high school senior must complete in order to be qualified for admission to any campus of the California State University and the University of California.

A to G coursework requirements coursework represents a partnership between k-12 academic standards and curriculum and the academic requirements necessary for incoming freshmen to succeed at the CSU and the UC systems. Any changes to the course content or requirements of a 2G would require collaboration, alignments, and shared goal of practitioners from the kindergarten to higher education institutions.

Ensuring academic rigor has always been a component of the A to G requirements. In recent years, both the CSU and UC have put forth proposals to change the A to G requirements due to the expressed concern that incoming freshmen were not adequately prepared.

However, the proposals were not incorporated into the a requirements because the collaboration, alignment, and shared goal with the k-12 was not realized. Despite being proposed as a method to close the achievement gap for degree attainment, the proposals were seen as creating additional barriers to CSU and UC admissions for high school students.

Increasing rigor at the expense of access, diversity, and inclusion is never a valid reason to change admission requirements. This brings us to the topic of our hearing today. In July of 2023, the State Board of Education adopted a new framework for mathematics instruction for k-12.

Several days before the framework was to be approved, the University of California Board of Admission and Relations with schools, also known as Bors, voted to clarify eligibility criteria for advanced mathematics by removing data science as an acceptable course for admission to the UC.

Further meetings of the UC boards concluded that beginning in the 2025-2026 school year, neither data science nor statistics of any nature would be a suitable requirement for algebra two for purposes of fulfilling the math requirement, also known as area C in the A to G requirements. The decision by UC Boards has been met with media attention, questions from the governing body of the UC system, and confusion from k-12 systems and parents and students.

Today, we are here to provide the University of California the opportunity to provide the public and k-12 counterparts an explanation of the decision, the rationale behind the decision, and the intended goal that the UC is trying to achieve.

As previously mentioned, preparing students for admission is not solely the responsibility of the UC, but rather a shared responsibility with k-12. Therefore, we will also hear from our k-12 partners regarding how the decision will impact students and practitioners.

We also hear from the CSU, since UC's clarification of eligibility criteria directly affects which courses qualify as a to g and therefore could impact admissions to the CSU system as well, I look forward to the robust discussion today and hope this hearing will serve as an opportunity for clear, intentional, and inclusive dialogue between the UC and our k-12 partners.

At this time, I'd like to welcome the chair of the Assembly Education Committee to make some opening remarks. Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi.

Thank you very much, Chair Fong. I am very much looking forward to today's discussion because it is so critical to all of our California high school students on what standards exactly are they supposed to be meeting in order to be able to apply and to be eligible for our University of California and our California State University admissions?

As the chair of the Education Committee, which focuses on our k-12 system and our students, I start with the fundamental dilemma that I think many California high school students are facing at this point.

Juniors in high school who are sitting in data science courses, who enrolled with the understanding that they could substitute this course for algebra two, and who may now not meet the a through g requirement. Why are we changing or creating this confusion in terms of what the eligibility criteria is midstream?

You know where our California high school students are. They've been making plans, planning their lives, planning their curriculum to meet these requirements. What about students who are sitting in AP statistics courses today and who thought that they were taking advanced math courses for purposes of applying to UC or CSU as STEM majors?

These are, you know, questions that are highlighting the absolute need to make sure that our higher education decision making process is, you know, not operating in a silo, but is working in coordination with our k through 12 governance system, where we have a rigorous multi year process which leverages the input of experts in subject matter curriculum instruction, as well as input from educators, students, parents, and the General public, a process that is public and transparent.

And so, you know, as I, you know, want to take the, you know, encourage all the speakers to be focusing their comments from the students perspective, who relied on the criteria that were, you know, just adopted just a few years ago.

I look forward to the testimony of all the panelists today, and I also would like to ask the panelists to address a fundamental governance question. Who is really in charge of California's high school curriculum, the k-12 system or the University of California? With this system that we have, we clearly need to do a better job to make sure that we are working together to support and advance the educational aspirations of all of our California high school students. Thank you very much, Mister Chair.

Thank you so much, Chair Muratsuchi, for your opening comments and remarks. And I'm also grateful to be joined by our Members of the Assembly Education and higher education committees here today, would you like to make ... Assemblymember Quirk Silva welcome.

Yes, I'd like to thank you both our higher education and our Committee on education for hosting this. We know all too often we start our hearings, and many times we can't jump into a subject and really get all the information. So these oversight hearings are extremely important, which is why I'm up here in Sacramento today.

I'll be really frank that I'm going to be listening again to how do these new objectives affect our most vulnerable students? How is this going to either create more access or, in fact, create barriers?

As many of you know, I was an educator myself for almost 30 years, and all too often we have seen that sometimes pathways that we believe make individuals have more access in fact do the opposite.

So when we create new types of way to enter our higher education, my fundamental question is going to be, is this going to allow our most vulnerable students the access they need, or is it going to create barriers? So I'm going to ask the speakers that are speaking to address that subject for us.

Thank you for having me.

Thank you so much, Assemblymember Quirk-Silva, and thank you to my colleagues again for your opening comments at this time. Now we'd like to introduce our first panel from the University of California.

Our speakers for the first panel are Han Mi Yoon-Wu, Associate Vice Provost for the University of California systemwide undergraduate relations, and Doctor Deborah Swenson, a Professor of economics at UC Davis and the current Board's chair. Thank you so much for being here today. And you may begin when you're ready.

Do I need to turn anything on or.

I think it should be on already. You might just want to bring it a little closer. Apologize thank you.

So thank you, Chair Fong and Chair Muratsuchi and Members of the committees for this opportunity to speak to you today about a recent University of California policy update made with respect to admissions requirements for incoming UC first year students.

I'm Deborah Swenson, Professor of Economics at UC Davis and the current chair of UC's faculty Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools, also known as BORS. In fall 2023, BORS convened an area C faculty workgroup on mathematics preparation, which considered UC math admissions requirements in two stages.

Stage one focused on the types of math courses that qualify as advanced mathematic mathematics for UC preparation. Stage two focused on UC's definition of foundational mathematics for college preparation. This area C workgroup ultimately produced a report and recommendations for each stage that was submitted to, and unanimously endorsed by BORS Members.

I will briefly review the findings from each stage before turning it over to my colleague, Han Mi Yoon-Wu, who's associate vice provost of undergraduate admissions, and will provide more information on the implementation of these BORS policy decisions based on the stage one report, BORS policy guidance on Area C centered on two key points.

First, UC's core math requirement did not change. UC continues to require three years of college preparatory mathematics and strongly recommends a fourth year of mathematics. That is, students should ideally take math each year of high school, and indeed, admissions data from the past decade show that nearly all UC applicants do so.

98% the foundational three years of math coursework must include or integrate topics covered in elementary algebra 2 and 3 dimensional geometry and advanced algebra.

This aligns with either the traditional three course series, algebra one, geometry, algebra two, or the integrated three course series of math 1, 2 and three, which is also called the Common Core state standards in mathematics that the California State Board of Education adopted over a decade ago.

The second policy decision clarified that there are two types of higher math courses. UC's definition of advanced mathematics is now updated to reflect these two types of higher math courses that extend beyond the foundational three course series.

One type of higher math courses may validate or replace lower level math courses if they have as prerequisites all of the content coursework included in algebra two or math three, and they rely on the content in the foundational three course series. Courses of that form include pre calculus and AP calculus.

A second type of higher math courses are considered suitable for recommended fourth year of math, but won't validate the lower level math courses because they do not require all of the lower level content. An example there is AP statistics. The stage two report turns attention to the recommendation of the fourth year of mathematics that ideally will advance students learning.

For students who have taken the three year course series, a higher level math course in their senior year, such as pre calculus, calculus, or statistics, should build on the foundation and reinforce key learning points created in the first three years, which will effectively prepare students for college level studies across the widest range of potential academic majors.

It is precisely the desire to maintain a broad scope of opportunities for all accepted UC students that inspired the revision of Area C requirements as lacking. This background in high school runs the risk of restricting students college major options once they matriculate at UC.

The stage two report also acknowledges that there are other high school math courses available that do not directly build on the content of the entire core math sequence and do not align with the advanced math standards as outlined in the California Common Core standards.

These courses can be a valuable option for students who are interested in broadening their facility with mathematics or wanting to explore different applications of mathematics. In summary, I want to underscore that there are multiple ways to address the college ready standard outlined in California's Common Core mathematics standards and to meet UC's Area C course criteria.

UC continues to urge schools to update and adapt mathematics instructions in ways that support every student's success. The ultimate goal is for UC to align with the state k-12 standards in mathematics to ensure math course options that give California students the opportunity to choose the most relevant learning path for their educational aspirations at UC or elsewhere.

I now turn it over to associate Vice provost and Executive Director of undergraduate Admissions, Han Mi Yoon-Wu. She will go over the implementation plans for the recent Area C policy updates.

Thank you, Chair Fong and Chair Muratsuchi, for this opportunity to speak with you today. Undergraduate admissions at the UC Office of the President provides monthly updates on General admissions policy and processes, including Area C, to high schools through the counselors and advisors bulletin and the high school articulation newsletter.

These electronic publications go out to over 25,000 recipients throughout the state. Area C was featured in special bulletins in February and in June, immediately after each workgroup report was released and featured again last month. We will continue to provide relevant and timely updates to the community in this manner.

We also recently held our annual counselor conferences throughout the state, three in person in one virtual event with over 5000 counselors. These conferences featured a session entirely about Area C, and the annotated presentation is available online and was shared in the September counselors and advisors bulletin.

One of the key messages that we have been communicating from the beginning is that students who have taken or are currently taking statistics or data science right now are not affected, but beginning next year, those students who planned to take statistics or data science courses without having taken algebra 2 may want to reconsider if they plan to be eligible for the University of California.

Much of the technical implementation related to Area C courses falls under the purview of UCs High School Articulation unit, which oversees the a through g course management portal and the a through g policy resource guide tools that are used by every high school or district with an active A through G list.

The High School Articulation Unit has begun communicating implementation details to schools and districts statewide through its monthly high school articulation newsletter. This electronic communication is the unit's customary way of sharing policy operational updates with every a through g course list manager statewide.

Last week, a special bulletin on Area C was released with implementation details and a timeline tailored to this audience. A webinar is also planned for November to provide additional guidance and to answer any frequently asked questions. An announcement about the policy updates is featured on the A through G Policy resource guide and all communications are archived and available for on demand review.

As part of the implementation, it's important to emphasize that all previously approved Area C courses and newly approved courses submitted during the annual A through G course submission period, which is February through August, will be posted to the school's A through G course list based on the usual procedures and timelines for updating the lists.

All data science courses will be categorized under statistics. The statistics discipline schools will be notified of any other reclassifications prior to the February 1 opening of the 2526 course submission period, and more detailed information will be provided in our webinar next month.

It's important to note that high schools may revise and resubmit courses during the entire submission period in advance of the 25-26 school year when the Area C policy revisions take effect. This is part of the regular review cycle, and for A through G courses, every course that is denied receives feedback about what is needed to meet the relevant criteria for approval.

And as a final note, I'd like to remind the Committee that under UC's comprehensive review policy, all coursework is viewed in relation to the applicant's academic and personal circumstances in the admission process.

Comprehensive review means that campuses consider multiple factors, multiple measures of achievement in the context of opportunities available to the student, and no single course or subject area is a deciding factor in the admission decision. Professor Swenson and I welcome your questions. Thank you.

Thank you so much for both your presentations, and I have several questions before I open the floor to other Members of the Committee and really appreciate the updates here in terms of the mission clarification that is scheduled to be implemented by fall of 2025, as you mentioned with further clarity provided in February of 2025 with the course submission coursework.

Given that this only provides k-12 institutions seven months to address the change, how would this impact our current sophomores and juniors who may not be informed in order to change their course schedule and with the UC system, consider delaying the implementation? And if there's a delay in the implementation, how many years would you consider delaying the implementation?

Again, the policy implementation was based on a phased in approach where course lists for the 25-26 academic year will be approved beginning in February, and so students who are currently sophomores and juniors, I think you said, will know when they start and register for their coursework for starting next year, what courses are available to them, and this is the regular annual process.

Thank you for that advice, provost. Just the further point on that is, if it's implemented by February of 2025 and students start school in August, that's literally probably 5-6 months. And if they're not informed on this, that might impact their admissions process to the UC system. Would the UC system consider a delay of a year or two and possible implementation of this so there's further awareness of these changes?

The decision of the timing for implementation, I think, would fall on BORS and their review of that. However, in the current implementation, it was viewed that the two-year advance notice was sufficient for students to plan to take algebra two prior to graduation so that they would be eligible for the University of California.

And our data actually show that the vast majority of students are taking algebra two and not taking data science in substitute for algebra two. They are taking it in addition to algebra two, as well as other higher level math.

Right. So thank you. Reinforcing the view from BORS on this. I think the implementation was taken in a very measured way. Schools have already heard through Han Mi's office many times about the changes that were under discussion. And given that they have also had counselor meetings, the counselors are aware of the changes.

So no student who's currently applying to UC or CSUs this year will be impacted at all. So if you've already made your course decisions, we will stand by the courses that we accepted in the past.

But the view of the Committee or of BORS is that preparation for students who want to go to the UC or want to go to the CSUs is really better set up if they fulfill the Common Core, either math 1, 2, 3 or go through algebra two.

And so by next year, a student will be aware of, because of the AG process that is handled, what courses will qualify for the area C completion. So no student should be unaware going into next year. By next fall, all students should be very much aware that they need to take that algebra two in their senior year to become eligible.

Okay, I have a couple more questions. Thank you so much. Thank you for that comment. So there's no consideration of any further delay?

I think the view is that we already are making a large delay. You know, if you were thinking about the best academic preparation of students, we would have implemented last year and said, you need to make this shift immediately. Fortunately, there's not too much damage because the number of students who take either statistics or data science instead of the algebra two is really tiny, so there aren't too many.

But the ideal would have been to cut it off immediately if you really want to prepare students best and to make it possible for them to go into a STEM major if they wish, when they come to UC or go to CSU.

Okay, thank you. And follow up on that question is, any recent UC boards report asserts that there's no new pathways for students who wish to attain admission to the UC.

And it goes to your point that you just made right now is, what if a student who wishes to be a STEM major elects to take AP statistics or data science in their senior year after they have completed algebra two? Will their application be deemed less competitive because they did not take precalculus or calculation? Would they be relegated to non ...?

Absolutely not. I mean, as each application is viewed by the campuses in context of the other 12 factors that are evaluated, so we're seeing the students extra activities, we see whether the student works, we see their family circumstances. So each student is evaluated in a comprehensive way where we look for will they be successful?

But also, can we bring in students from all across the state who will contribute to a state representation of California that looks like k-12?

Okay, thank you. Assemblymember Quick Silva.

I want to back up a little bit to before this decision was made, which is, how did the University come to the decision that data science courses are no longer a good substitute for algebra two?

Okay. So I think the challenge with data sciences is it's a very emerging field, you know, so it's obviously leveraging computer technology, large data sets, and at the college level, data science classes are straight on STEM. You know, if you do data science at college, you have college level calculus. You also have to do Linear algebra and a very technical major.

So if you want to be prepared to study data science, you actually do need to get through at least algebra two, because if you don't take that algebra two by the time you leave high school, you may not be able to get that course because it's no longer allowed to be offered in most community colleges and it cannot be offered by the CSUs or the UC's.

So our view was that, you know, longer term, we would certainly welcome data science courses or statistics courses, but for them to be qualified as an advanced mathematics class, they need to fully incorporate. They have to build on the three core courses that we want all of our students to take.

And then adding to that, when our chair said, really? With the decision. It's about seven months for this transition. Not looking at an administrator or a school site, that seems like a very short amount of time for them to transition, actually faculty or teachers to be able to change from whether they were teaching data science to algebra.

Do you have any input on is this attainable or have we looked at that? Because not every school site is going to be able to make that transition.

So it goes back to that access, which is if we are not careful with this decision, we could have some sites that don't have the personnel to actually teach that to move from, if you want to say data science to algebra two, right? Well, or three, I should say math three.

I think it's very likely that most schools should be able to offer algebra two because historically they were already offering algebra two. And it's only the last couple of years where schools had the opportunity to possibly offer data science instead.

I would assume for most districts that was giving a teacher a new prep and that it's a short enough period of time between the two that it would just be taking an instructor who was teaching algebra two and data science and maybe then having them focus on the algebra two, or if there's the capacity to do both and meet all of the need for algebra two, continuing to.

Because my fear is, if you'd want to say a desert where you have some schools that just can't offer this at all, and then what is the solution for students?

The statistics on California schools is that most schools not only are able to offer everything, but offer courses even beyond that. So the data from the UC system show that is it, 94% of our.

Schools that have a through g course lists are also offering advanced math and very few schools, in fact, about a dozen schools. Of the 161600 California public high schools that have an a through g course list, only about a dozen actually don't offer algebra two.

That is my focus area and concern because those are usually our most underserved under accessible areas, and those students do matter. So whether it's 6% or 12%, that's what I want to hear about, because where are they going to go?

Well, for those students, I mean, it's probably a question that's better for the k-12 system, but I would assume that many of these cases happen because you're in a rural district where there is no math teacher who can teach algebra two, and that's going to impact also students ability or, you know, the instruction of data science.

You know, it may be a place where it's hard to hire. Now having said that, the way that applications are evaluator in context of what the high school offers, and so if the high school doesn't offer very many math classes, that's going to be evident on the application. And you would not hold students to the same expectation. The fact they didn't take algebra two is not going to be held against them in that.

Well, I just want to go on record on speaking to this because it's a huge area when you compound it by, if you are in an underserved area, that they cannot get this coursework. It also leads into professions after they go to college.

So if they can't do that, you're gonna have less doctors, you're gonna have all of these type of impacts. And it may seem like a small percentage, you said 94%, so that's 6%.

But for those 6% in very underserved areas, it means a desert when it comes back to these professions going back into their communities within 10 years of graduating.

Right. And just one clarification on that. The 94% is the schools who offer above and beyond algebra two. It's only about 12 or 13 high schools that do not have algebra two out of the 1600. So it would be great if they were given help to get that capacity because I completely agree.

And one of the ways we try to close that gap in a through g offerings is through our online UC scout program that offers a whole array of a through g courses online. And that service is actually free to high schools. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. So Doctor Swenson, first of all, I have some questions, some basic questions about boarse. How many Members are, you know, are Members of bors, right?

So we have 11 Members. There's a chair, Vice Chair, or actually, no, I should say 12, because we have a representative from all of the UC campuses and it includes the med school, even though they don't have undergraduates.

Okay, so, and then of course we.

Have a large ex officio membership as well. So the chair of the academics Senate and Vice Chair are both ex officio. And we also have the participation of Han Mi's team as consultants.

And they provide advice to us on articulation and just all the various facets of admissions, because it's really good to have a staff who's always doing this to inform us of how things work and what kind of timelines and other elements are feasible.

Okay, so 11 Members plus ex officio Members, all UC faculty Members and Administration.

So UC faculty Members, not Administration. So it's a faculty body.

Okay.

There's two student representatives as well, graduate student representative and undergraduate student representative.

Okay. And are your meetings public?

So we hold monthly meetings, and the agendas are always released, and the minutes from the meetings are also released on a website which the public can read.

And how are your meetings publicized?

Well, UCOP has a website. Or is it UCOP? Or. Anyway, academic Senate of the UC has a website which lists all of the academic Senate committees, their membership, but also the agendas and minutes from the meetings that we conduct.

Is BORS subject to the Bagley-Keene act, the open meeting law?

No.

Are Members of the public allowed to participate in your meetings?

No, they are not.

Are they allowed to ask questions during any of your meetings?

No, they're not public meetings.

Okay. So, I mean, clearly, what BORS decides is extremely consequential, given that you set standards not only for the University of California, but for our California State University system, being largely similar in terms of the admission requirements, as well as the fact that, you know, many of our school districts align their graduation requirements based on the a through g requirements.

When you change your policy, it's my understanding that in 2020, boards adopted the policy allowing for data science and statistics to be substitutes for algebra two. Is that correct?

Yes.

Yeah. And in 2023, you changed that policy depending on the majors. Was that change done with any consultation with the State Board of Education?

So there was a lot of coming to that decision. Took a while. And I should note that in parallel to concerns at the UC, the CSU mathematics faculty were actually very concerned about the use of statistics or data sciences validating algebra two. They were very concerned that that would leave students underprepared to come, especially into STEM majors.

So it wasn't coming only from the UC. Now, before I speak to how they came to that decision, I would like to mention one other thing, which is, although Bors comes up with recommendations, we're not a policy body that imposes policy on the state.

In order for a recommendation that comes from BORS to be implemented, it needs to go through subsequent steps and ultimately be approved by the UC regents, who are appointed by the Governor. So, BORS is not, by itself, making decisions.

There's a lot of scrutiny that comes in those later stages, and to the extent that there is concern about public ability to weigh in. As you know, the regents meetings open to the public. They invite speakers from all different impacted groups.

And so, although our meetings don't include open session, our decisions are subject to a lot of scrutiny and are not going to be just rubber stamped.

Okay, I appreciate that clarification. So as far as the change in policy, the change in Bohr's policy dealing with data science and statistics, was that change approved and adopted by the UC regions.

So this was a bit different than the typical.

So the policy that we have had forever is one where either algebra one, algebra two and geometry, or the Common Core math 1, 2, 3 would satisfy admissions, you know, so the only sort of change along the way was the decision in 2020 that you might let students not take algebra two if they did statistics or data science.

However, as faculty looked at data science at the high school level, they realized that although they may have thought data science would look the way it looks at the University, it was nothing.

The math instruction that students need if they want to come and be a STEM major on campuses, and in fact, to be a STEM major, you need far more than that.

But, you know, that's the minimum preparation a student needs to be able to enter any major on campus when they come, which is a goal of inclusivity that I think is really important to boars, that students are prepared so that we haven't tracked them in high school in a way that you didn't take the right courses and now you have a subset of majors that you're qualified for, and others are now off the table.

I mean, as a double UC degree holder, I fully appreciate how the Academic Senate and the BORS Committee in particular, see themselves as the standard bearers of academic rigor in terms of who has the privilege to attend the UC's and by extension, the CSU requirements. But I just want to underscore.

I mean, this whole experience is really highlighted in my mind, you know, that we're not just talking about academic standards here, we're talking about the impact on thousands of high school students and as they plan their lives.

Was there so when Bohrs was made that change from 2020 to 2023 and their policies related to data science and statistics, was there any consultation with any policymakers in the k through 12 system?

Don't know on that one.

We did look at the data from our UC applicants to see what the impact of this decision might be, and from our own data, beginning from 2019, we saw that students from our 130,000 applicant pool, from California students, only about 200 were actually not taking Algebra 2. And by 2024, that had risen slightly to about 500 applicants.

So it was a decision that was made understanding that the impact would be lesser now to make it sooner, rather than continuing to allow students to believe that they could be successful coming to the University of California without having taken Algebra 2 in high school.

Okay, so, but you reviewed the data internally. But my question was, did anyone either, with BOARS or UCOP, consult with anyone, you know, with the K-12 system before adopting this policy change?

Not to my knowledge.

Okay. And that's, you know, I'm concerned that that is the reason why we are where we are at at this point, is that, you know, we have these hugely consequential decisions being made by BOARS, by UCOP, that impacts our K-12 school districts, all of our students, without any consultation.

And that leads to the implementation problems, the timeline problems, which I hope this will not only be a lesson for all that were involved in this BOARS decision, but, you know, would create an opportunity for us to discuss what, if any, governance changes we need to make going forward to avoid the situation from ever happening again. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much, Chair Muratsuchi. And just a follow up on Chair Muratsuchi's questions. A few minutes ago, Chair Muratsuchi asked the question point blank, did the UC regents approve this change? And so I didn't really hear a clarifying answer on that.

Right. So the reason this is not. Okay. Our view is this is not a policy change. Our policy has always been that eligibility for application to the UC involves the three classes. The only question here was what classes would validate Algebra 2? And previously, statistics and data science, for a very short time, were allowed to validate.

But having said that, I think there's a lot of feeling that maybe this is a capricious decision. But I think the thing that makes this a unique situation is that data science is not a defined subject area by the state. The State Board does not have guidelines about what data science looks like.

You know, so you're not going to see BOARS weighing in on higher standards in English or higher standards. You know, this is not an exclusionary decision that was made. But instead, BOARS, our primary consultant, our consultation invited, involved disciplinary experts who are data scientists.

The chair is a data science faculty member at Berkeley who is an innovator in data sciences. She was joined by statisticians, mathematicians, people who use data on a frequent basis.

And so I would like to talk a little bit about how they went about this process, because although the consultation was not directly with K-12, it was highly informed by the instruction in K-12 and the strong desire to be sure that that would support students coming to CSUs, UCs, or any other university.

So if you look at the reports that they provided to BOARS, one of the things that they did was they looked at the curriculum in the data science classes that students in California are taking, and they compared it with the expectations of Algebra 2. The report itself just shows you the syllabi. And if you look at the syllabi, you'll notice there's not a lot of overlap. Okay. So that was the basis of their concern.

But they went beyond that, and namely, they got the electronic access to the textbooks that the students were studying for data science, and they realized that the courses really indeed did not encompass the Algebra 2 that students need if they want to be successful in STEM at college, you know?

So that was the information that went into the decision, that it was important. Like in your opening remarks, Member Silva, you talked about decisions where you think you're doing something that helps and it actually hurts. I think this is a case where the original thought was, well, data science helps.

We should allow data science. And the chair of this committee absolutely could imagine that data science classes will be developed that will be capable of satisfying our core entrance requirements, but also have a data science emphasis to them.

But the reason for the need to action was that if we allow students to go the statistics route or the data science route as it currently is constructed, we are going to see students cut off from the full range of majors that UC offers and other universities would offer. Without an ability to have remediation, that bridge is cut.

Thank you. And who is the chair of the UC Regents Committee on Academic and Student Affairs?

Regent Leib.

Regent Leib. And so, was Regent Leib consulted in this process, and did he call for a motion to say, we approve this, not approve this? I didn't really get a clear answer on that.

Oh, so. Sorry. At the time that the decision was made, the chair was actually Regent Park. Regent Leib is the current chair of ASAC Committee. But as Professor Swenson noted, there was no change to actual regents policy, and so when we presented to the regents, it was as an informational item and not an action item.

Right. So it's more the classification of what classes fit under which categories of A to G. So data science still qualifies as an A to G course. It just doesn't meet the math entry requirement of those three courses.

Okay, this goes to the larger question. I think that Chair Muratsuchi and Assembly Member Quirk-Silva have brought up in terms of just looking at the overall governance of BOARS and the Beck Laken Act, and just the transparency process as well. So I just want to put that on the record as well. Assembly Member Muratsuchi.

Thank you. I just want to follow up. So I'm a little confused. It's my understanding that the 2023 board's decision was that you establish four categories depending on their majors.

Actually, they weren't tightly tied to majors. I mean, there was some discussion about how some courses are going to be better for pursuing one major versus another. But, you know, essentially what this was coming down to is some classes are the three that you have to take in order to be eligible.

And then beyond that, some classes validate the Algebra 2, Math 3, and others don't. And of those that validate, those are advanced math. There are two types. Some of those types, like the calculus, allow you to validate the Algebra 2, and they're, you know, encompassing things that's more depth in the area, whereas a breadth course like statistics, that's absolutely advanced math, AP statistics, but it's giving the student more breadth in their instruction.

And the reason that it doesn't validate the Algebra 2 is that it uses a little bit of Algebra 2, but it doesn't subsume the full discipline.

Okay, but in 2020, the policy was adopted that data science or statistics would fulfill the requirement for an advanced mathematics course.

Could be allowed to validate.

Could be allowed to validate. Okay, but that was changed in 2023. Correct.

And as I noted earlier, you know, this isn't a policy that was only coming out of a room of 12 people of BOARS, but instead, you had the entire CSU math faculty and system very much opposed to the use of data science as a validation.

Okay. No, I understand that. You know, there are a lot of faculty members feel that it's critical that there was a clear change. I'm hearing a change of policy in terms of how data science and statistics were viewed from 2020 to 2023.

But in terms of your policy adopted in 2023, it's my understanding that in order to qualify for a STEM major, you have to take pre-calculus and calculus.

Oh, actually, that's definitely not true. Although we want students to take four years of math, and the four years have to encompass those three years, if a student doesn't take calculus or pre-calculus, they are not disqualified from being a STEM major.

The only thing that may have been in the, you know, if you really want to prepare more before you go to college, it's great to take pre-calculus or to take Calculus AB, but it is not required and you will have all the support when you get to campus to still be a STEM major if you don't take those classes.

But, you know, to the extent that you're giving students advice about how should you spend that fourth year of math, you know, well, if they're planning to be an engineer, go ahead with calc and pre-calc because that's going to be your freshman year.

It's a really good preparation. For a student who is maybe not planning to do a STEM major, that fourth year can be a completely different class. So there the advice would be, talk to your counselors and think about the classes that are best as your fourth year. But admissions decisions, eligibility is purely the first three years. It is not at all influenced by the presence or absence of other courses.

So, for example, so if admissions decisions are made on the first three years, a student relying on the 2020 policy is taking data science in their junior year. The fact that they didn't take algebra, they took data science in lieu of Algebra 2, you're saying today that they're not going to be penalized?

No, they would be absolutely eligible because we're not going to pull the rug out and say there's a new rule that you weren't able to anticipate and now you're going to be viewed differently.

Okay, well, I'd just like to wrap up this panel, Mr. Chair, because I know that we have a lot coming forward. I mean, if I'm confused with all of these briefing materials, I can only imagine what our average high school student, you know, is thinking.

You know, what I'm hearing overall is that the decision-making was largely within the confines of faculty members of academics. But there isn't that student-centered, you know, considerations, decision-making in terms of how students are supposed to plan their high school curriculum when the policies are being changed midstream.

And so, you know, again, I think there are governance issues, but I would ask the BOARS Committee going forward to really recognize the, even though you're saying that you don't adopt policy, I mean, people are planning their lives around what the BOARS Committee is deciding.

And we're talking about math here, but we may be talking ethnic studies or something else in the future. And so I just can't overstate the significance and the consequences of the board's decisions and how we need to make sure that we're coordinating this. And ultimately, again, I go to my opening comments.

I mean, who is deciding what courses are to be taken in our K-12? Is it the BOARS Committee or is it the K-12 governance system, starting with the State Board of Education? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much, Chair Muratsuchi. Assembly Member Sharon Quirk-Silva.

Thank you for your testimony. I, too, want to kind of back up even further, all the way to kind of K-6, really 6th grade.

So if we're now saying, in essence, the recommendation, which has been the recommendation for a very long time, that our students need to take higher level math, three years, even four years, in order to be ready for a STEM, and we back up to, let's just imagine, parent of second language, first-time college students looking to go to college, from going all the way to 6th grade in order to take the math they need in 7th and 8th, in order to prepare to be in Algebra 1 in high school, to take those three years of math, and possibly four.

What should we be telling a 6th grade parent that they need to do to prepare? Because really, this isn't just about high school, it's about before, where we start to see students siphon off. We can talk about other areas, but math is the most difficult area for most of our students, as we know, which is why we shrink in the numbers going into engineering, in STEM field.

But what would you say, because my husband teaches math right now in junior high, and what should we be saying to parents to prepare them for four years of high school math, to be able to be in Algebra 1, or even to teachers?

Well, that's a hard question. I think you probably have better ideas on that than I could bring to this. Just one reflection, though, that I would like to bring, and that is in preparing for this meeting, you know, I looked at other states, and one of the things that strikes me is the State of California has a lower math graduation requirement than 47 states around the country, and that worries me.

I think it would be good if the State of California was more similar to most states, and the three years of math going was seen as a standard, just in the sense that I think it does become confusing to students, you know, well, you have to do three years if you're going to go to college, but you don't have to do three years if you're not.

But on the other hand, I mean, I'm sure your husband could share far more about how you navigate that pathway.

Do you have any ideas? Because you can see how this backs all the way up. They can't get into Algebra 1 if they don't have the basic math skills. So we're really talking to public education teachers who are in junior high and even 4th, 5th, and 6th, because in many of our schools, you have to take an exam in order to get into pre-algebra in junior high.

So then we, in essence, are tracking students in or out. And I can see that if students aren't prepared to sit in an Algebra 1 class as a freshman, then it's going to be a very miserable experience. But how do we get to the point that you're trying to get at, which is, in essence, four years of college prep math, in order to be successful on the college campus?

Right. Well, we should back up and say, you can be successful with the three years. And, you know, there are schools that can't provide more than the three years, and we can work with those students and help them to be successful.

Now, of course, in the world that we are in, which is, you know, increasingly technological, the four years is really helpful to a lot of students. And so that's an ideal. But I think a lot of these things are, of course, far out of BOARS' realm.

You know, like other states worried about tracking, you know, tracking some students off the entry too early, and instead require everybody's gonna be in Algebra 1 unless your parent takes you out and, you know, makes an effort to take you off.

Yeah. I think a lot of it has to do with local school policies, and I'm not a K-12 person, but if there are local policies that are making these decisions based on very early data on the student and teachers and counselors making recommendations for them to be tracked out of certain pathways, I think that's, you know, very disturbing.

And in essence, that's what I think the board's decision was trying to address, is that if students are being encouraged not to take Algebra 2 because somebody else thinks that that student won't be successful in Algebra 2 and they steer them into an alternative path, then that essentially blocks them from having maximum opportunities.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Assembly Member Quirk-Silva. And the final question I have for the panel, and it's mainly for Professor Swenson, in terms of, going back to the UC regents policy role and policymaking process, any changes to the conditions for admissions must be approved by the UC regents. Is that correct?

Yes, and we have.

And was this not a change in admissions process?

No. We've always required that you have Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2, or the math 1-2-3 equivalents. That's never changed. And this is really a clarification about what classes could substitute for that Algebra 2 class. And so going back to, you know, like, is BOARS looking to be activist on things?

The answer is absolutely not. I think this happened much more because data science is a new and emerging field. We don't have state standards for what things look like.

You know, if you're thinking about Algebra 2, the state standards are crystal clear, you know, really easy. And that's not an area where BOARS would ever want to tread, like deciding is that too much, too little. But instead data science, because it's evolving very quickly, I think the original thought, well, is, of course, you're going to need to know all of Algebra 2 to be successful in data science.

So of course it should validate. But you don't have to master all of Algebra 2 to take the data science classes that California students are currently taking. And for that reason, you're putting those students at a disadvantage for college preparation if they substitute that class.

You know, they will have a very challenging time entering just any major that they might want. You know, they already will have cut off, you know, scores of majors.

Okay, thank you for that context. And we're going to go this one more time. You mentioned, it's called a clarification in your words, but the data science and those courses are no longer be acceptable starting.

Oh, no, those courses will be very acceptable as part of a submission record. So in the A to G requirements, we want students to take a number of courses in that category G, which is either more English because you love English or more math because you want to explore things, and it would fulfill that easily.

And we encourage students to take classes like that, especially if it really opens up their interest in this area. But we're just saying that the math entry requirements are the same as they've ever been before.

And, you know, I think if data science is like 25 years old now, we would have sort of syllabi and curricula and it would have not had this sort of blip along the way where what sounded like data science and sounded like Algebra 2 Plus wasn't Algebra 2 Plus.

Great class, you know, so we're not saying it's not good. We're not saying that it won't help a student applying to the UC, but it won't fulfill the checking the box for the math entry requirement.

But they will say in Area C as math courses, as a fourth year math course.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. And I just want to amplify Chair Muratsuchi's comments again about the impact that BOARS has on the hundreds of thousands of lives of students in California when they're applying for our UC campuses, our CSU campuses.

I think definitely looking at opportunities around additional transparency and information to make sure that folks are aware of the requirements and clarity of the requirements. To have something change midstream in the span of a few years can be confusing for folks.

And I think you mentioned whether it's 200 students, I know this report here, 670 applicants who took statistics or data science as their highest level of mathematics without completing Algebra 2 or math, so it's impacting lives of hundreds if not thousands of students here in California.

It goes back to Assembly Member Quirk-Silva's points about making sure how we maximize opportunities for our Californians as they apply and they seek their higher education journey. So these are just some final comments I want to provide on this panel and we look forward to.

Thank you so much again for your presentations and thank you to my colleagues for their robust comments and insights on this issue. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Thank you.

Next, we'll move into our next panel, K-12 response and impact of the BOARS decision on K-12 math courses. Now we'll turn over the hearing to our Assembly Education Committee Chair, Al Muratsuchi, for him to introduce our next panel.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'd like to welcome our second panel representing our K-12 system. We will have in the following order. First, Dr. Linda Darling-Hammond, president of the State Board of Education, who will be joining us virtually via Webex. And so hopefully, oh, I see her on our screen.

So welcome, Dr. Darling-Hammond. Next, we will have Dr. Cole Sampson, chief curriculum and instruction officer for Kern County Superintendent of Schools. Following Dr. Sampson is Dr. Kyndall Brown, executive director of the California Mathematics Project. Following Dr. Brown will be Aly Martinez, chief program officer at Mathematics Student Achievement Partners.

And last but not least, Ananya Akkaraju, national co-chief of partnerships for GenerationUp and also a student at Dublin High School in Dublin, California. Welcome to all. Dr. Darling-Hammond, if you can kick us off here.

All right, thank you very much. I thank you, Chairman Fong and Chairman Muratsuchi for the opportunity to address this joint hearing.

While we are here to discuss recent changes in the expectations for the math curriculum enacted by the BOARS Committee and how those changes will affect schools and students, there are bigger issues that touch on the governance of public education, the future of STEM learning in California, the state's economy, and our collective future that I also want to raise that I think are beyond this particular decision.

The acronym BOARS stands for the Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools, and it is true that BOARS' decisions are connected to UC admissions as well as those of CSU. But BOARS effectively has no relationship with schools. There is no governance or required consultative relationship with the K-12 system.

It's also a very unique Committee. There is no other state in the nation that has a higher education body that both prescribes and approves the very content of specific courses for high school, like the A through G courses, and that is a big challenge. It's a big project to do all of that, and it is part of what is challenging in this moment.

The issue before the Committee began with an effort last summer by a group of UC faculty to change a set of decisions about the curriculum that their colleagues on BOARS had made actually a decade earlier in 2013. And I am not contending the decisions that were made in 2013 or the ones that were made this year.

I wanna call attention to the process issues that we face. And just as one of them, we heard earlier from Han Mi Yoon-Wu that approval for the courses that need to be reclassified will start in February of 2025 and it will conclude, according to the bulletin we got last week, in August of 2025.

So there will be decisions being made as late as August, when the schools start in August, for which the schools then need to engage in planning and etcetera.

So the process is very problematic from the K-12 perspective, even though it may feel more orderly from the higher education perspective. The big logistical issue is not whether UC applicants will take Algebra 2. As was already said, ninety nine point something percent of students coming into the UC are taking Algebra 2 in addition to whatever else they're taking.

It's what schools will offer for other courses, which has also been thrown up in the air by this process, and what the schools will do to incorporate the courses students need beyond those who are going to the UC as well as those who are hoping to go to the UC.

The bigger issue for the future is how we conceptualize the needs for the future. So I'll just note that the 2013 decisions were made actually in a process where the Legislature and the State Board were adopting the common core state standards for mathematic, adopted by 40 other states, as an attempt to modernize the US math curriculum.

As you likely know, the US ranks well below the international averages in mathematics and has for two decades since the international PISA tests were launched.

In 2013, BOARS made a decision in response to those standards to expand the options in math and encourage courses in data science, statistics, national algebra, and many others, and to get more students taking more math, as well as trying to align more fully with the common core.

Many other states were engaged in changes like that, and the list of math courses that we have, Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2, has been part of our BOARS policy, as was said, since BOARS was established in 1920, and they used the advice of the committee of 10 in 1892 to set them.

The fact that BOARS had encouraged a more variety of courses was discovered as the State Board was adopting its new mathematics curriculum framework in 2023. Because the curriculum framework referred appropriately to the A through G requirements, it said, here's what the A through G requirements say. This led to an effort to reverse the 2013 decision in a very hurried fashion.

The State Board was informed only a few days before its meeting in July 2023 that BOARS had held a non-public meeting the Friday before our Wednesday meeting and wanted to request changes to the framework, which have been revised many, many times in response to extensive public commentary over three years.

The board staff reached out multiple times to try to get clarity on what had been decided in the Friday meeting, which did not have clearly recorded decisions and received competing accounts from various people who were present at the meeting.

Finally, we were able, the morning of our vote, to get a formal statement from the university which was handed to me as we were deliberating for the vote, and it turned out that it did nothing have a decision associated with it. It was indeterminate.

It described the creation of a new workgroup rather than sort of a final answer to the question. So we voted to amend the framework further post-adoption as needed, to be sure that we could accurately represent the UC decisions, which was, of course, our goal.

The process has been confusing, and I detail all of this in my written testimony. I'm not going to go into all of the details, but when the Area C working group was convened and then BOARS in January, they first made clear, as we had hoped they would, what courses might validate Algebra 2, math 3, or at least what courses would not validate. It's still a little bit unclear what courses may validate.

But then the workgroup in June of 2024 created new classification, a category three labeled as recommended, a category four presumably not recommended and left the criteria for classification unclear, they took an unusual step of evaluating and naming classifications for four specific courses.

AP statistics course had a introduction to data science. Before they had criteria on which to evaluate them, they put AP statistics in category three, the others in category four, even though independent curriculum experts who have done an evaluation across all those courses found that at least one of them was comparable to AP statistics.

So they've been classified in different categories. That threw up in the air the question of, well, what is the real criterion? If courses that are doing the same thing are in different categories, that left open the possibility that 2,000 statistics and data science courses across the state would have to be reevaluated and reclassified.

And because the statement had a recommended designation, of course, districts, educators, parents, students believe that that's important, even though we've been told that it won't matter in admissions and they wanted to seek to understand and respond to it.

And so that has created a very confusing situation as people try to figure out what the courses will be that are in different classifications, which is a new feature of this set of decisions. A special bulletin last week was helpful in abandoning the designation of recommended.

They said that they would put all the data science and statistics courses in the same category, which is now called "other math," and they would do it just by title, so that they wouldn't have to all be re-reviewed. That does leave still other questions.

There are dilemmas, like the fact that innovative courses have been designed. One such thing in San Diego integrated the content of Algebra 2 into a course labeled as "Data Science." Washington state has also done something like that, where they've put the two together. They call it "Modern Algebra 2."

But it is not so simple to just look at a title and know what the content is. So these kinds of things, and I'll say why that's important in a few moments, but all of the courses that are to be revised for reclassification will be considered between February and August. And as I noted, school starts in August.

So schools will have not much time to plan for the courses, the teachers, the number of sections that are needed for the coming school year. It will likely lead to some board decisions. The other thing is that many, many students are not going to attend UC. Some might want to and won't get there. Others will be having other plans.

And we have to plan math courses for all of them. But we have to do it in a way that's efficient for the schools. So it's not like you say, well, we've got the old tracking system where these kids are going to only take these courses and other kids are going to take other courses.

Many schools are trying to detract, get courses that are much more engaging and interesting. So it's not about the few hundred kids who might want to take data science in lieu of Algebra 2, and that's not a problem. They'll take it in fourth year.

There's all the other students that also have to be planned for, and courses have to take into account these requirements as they're planning their entire curriculum and making sure they can staff it. There's an ongoing math shortage that the state experiences.

That's in part because the university sector has cut in half since 2004 the number of teachers it produces for the state. The number of math teachers coming in every year who are on emergency credentials or substandard credentials has been about half of the total for about since 20.

Sitting around if you're making late decisions about courses, who will be available? Oh dear, it looks like my... Am I still hearable and seeable? Disappeared for a minute on my screen. So we're worried. We're worried about hurriedly assembled courses taught by underprepared teachers, which will not be a recipe for success for developing students' math expertise.

And it's not that these problems are of BOARS making or the efforts of the committed faculty members who have been involved in that process. We have inherited a fragmented and antiquated governance structure for education in California.

There is just no established mechanism to coordinate between and among higher education segments in K-12, or to do so with business and labor, who have an economic and educational lens on what the curriculum might need to be for our rapidly changing world.

There is no established mechanism for BOARS to coordinate with K-12 colleagues, to hear from the public, to hold open hearings, receive comment. And those things, I will say from our perspective in the state board, help sensitize us to the realities of the work on the ground that need to be considered when changes are made.

The many laws and regulations we've designed to deal with a coherent process can be overlooked in a non-public process. For example, BOARS has recently proposed an entirely new subject area to be added as Area H, which would require and determine the content of ethnic studies courses.

Local high schools, if that happens, will have to make a significant course change for curriculum and professional development. If it changes rapidly in the fashion that we've just seen, many districts will require all of their students to meet these requirements in order to graduate. The a through g requirements are actually graduation requirements in a number of places.

They don't have to be consistent with the policies adopted by the State Board of Education or the Legislature, and this can really wreak havoc on the course offerings and schedules in schools. So I think we need to consider what we will be able to do to begin to cohere the way in which we make these decisions so that schools can adapt to them and take them into account and so that they are well informed.

There are bigger issues you want to need to contend with, and if you can bear with me for one more minute, we're in the middle of these huge generational changes that will require us to respond to a rapidly changing economy. Studies estimate now that 25% to 30% of jobs between now and 2030 are likely to disappear or radically reach redesigned because of AI and of course all of the other technology changes that have been going on, and that there will be more and more jobs that will require, across different vocations and occupations, data science skills and elements of computer science.

But fewer than half of California high schools even offer computer science. Only one third of high schools that serve large numbers of students of color and low income students even offer computer science. And courses are considered like that are other math in the new a through g framework. Eligible for admissions.

But there's little room in the high school sequence for most students to take them and no encouragement for schools to design or develop them. We have a curriculum gridlock that we have to resolve, and we're going to need to resolve that in a collaborative manner. The preferred sequence of courses, as you heard, is algebra, geometry, algebra two, pre-calculus, and calculus. It's a five course sequence that often requires students taking high school math in 8th grade.

And while we want students to take as much math as they can, when an earlier state board did virtually require 8th grade algebra, lots of students did not succeed in it. So we want success in this process as well. The Legislature just added personal finance to the list of courses that must be taken in high school.

It's a very important set of life skills, but in combination with all the other requirements, there is very little opportunity for courses. There could be better ways to organize the high school math curriculum. Remove the redundancies between algebra 1 and 2. Combine algebra two with data science and statistics, as San Diego did and in Washington state has done.

Reconsider pre-calculus, which is in large part a review course that was interjected because people hadn't learned what they needed in the previous courses. Ensuring that there's more room made for a variety of courses in math that support burgeoning career pathways.

In fact, our current version of the math pathway is not the basis for high school math in any high achieving country. And these are countries that also have more equitable outcomes. Japan, Korea, Estonia, Finland. All of them, we reviewed their policies, offer an integrated math sequence, like a math 1, 2, 3. They've infused more data science into that pathway, and then they get to calculus and other higher order math much more quickly and much more efficiently than we are doing right now.

And we need to figure out how to have those conversations so that we're not captive to course counting based on, you know, the outdated conceptions of how math has to be bundled or the Carnegie Unit. The Carnegie Foundation, which invented the Carnegie Unit, has announced that it is looking to eliminate it and to replace it with a way to evaluate competencies.

So I just think we need to be able to conversation that is much more comprehensive than the one that our current structure allows us to have. And we need to do some things about encouraging the production of more well prepared math teachers by our higher ed system so that we can teach all of these courses well, because no matter what courses we require, if they're not well taught, we're not going to get the results that we want to.

The questions before us really extend in multiple directions. How do we create a coherent means for the state to act in a coordinated way to evaluate our economic needs, our students' educational needs, and the demands of the disciplines, and then organize curriculum and teaching to meet them?

How do we respond to the needs for innovation in the curriculum as the economy is so rapidly changing and as states across the country are trying to figure out ways to recognize competencies and to organize the learning process in response to that set of changes? And then how do we productively teach the courses that produce these competencies? Because the curriculum, whatever it is, will not teach itself. I raise these bigger questions because I think the future of California as a high tech economy and of our current students depends on it. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have Dr. Cole Sampson.

Awesome. Thank you. Good morning, Members of the Committee. My name is Cole Sampson, and I serve as the chief curriculum instruction officer for the Kern County Superintendent of Schools. KCSOS supports 52 local educational agencies across Kern County, serving a wide range of students from small single schoolhouse districts to some of the largest in the state.

With my background as a math county math coordinator, secondary math teacher, California Mathematics Council board member, and a member of the curriculum Framework Criteria Committee for the 2023 California Math Framework, I'm here to address the ongoing challenges and lack of clarity as a result of the University of California's updated Area C math requirements.

In July 2023, BOARS sent a letter to the State Board of Education in which they backtracked on their October 2020 position to allow additional courses to validate year three or advanced algebra requirement. BOARS's decision was subsequently announced in the media even before UC officials had a chance to develop guidance for districts.

While I do not believe it was the intention of the committee, this unexpected move served as a catalyst for the confusion experienced by students, families, and California districts, leaving many to interpret the new position with limited guidance. Despite attempts by UC officials to clarify, the emerging messages about the reversal left districts scrambling to comply in the middle of summer, when a majority of staff and students were on break.

With master schedules set and students enrolled, many schools were under the impression they had to make quick decisions about the 23-24 course offerings, leading to inconsistencies in how districts handled the changes. Some school districts rolled back data science courses entirely, while others sought temporary solutions, creating confusion for teachers, administrators, students, and families alike. Since the 2023 letter, BOARS has released the stage 1 and 2 reports from the area C work group.

These reports made clear that students must complete a three course series, including topics covered in elementary and advanced algebra, and 2 and 3 dimensional geometry, which are typically made up of the algebra, geometry, algebra two, or math one through three series, referred to as the lower level coursework. This clarified that courses such as data science would no longer be taken in lieu of algebra two. However, additional clarification is needed around the validation for deficient grades in geometry and advanced algebra.

Current guidance may unfairly penalize students who start at a high school that offers a traditional math sequence but then transfer to a school offering the integrated math sequence, as there would be no option available to validate geometry. The new guidance provided in the stage two report doesn't merely reverse the October 2020 BOARS decision regarding data science, but arbitrarily creating a new four category system to classify high school math courses.

According to the Area C workgroup, courses in category three do not rely on an overwhelming majority of content and lower level courses and therefore would not replace or validate deficient grades in advanced algebra. These courses include AP statistics.

The workgroup went a step further to designate a fourth category of courses, further casting a cloud over courses such as data science, quantitative reasoning, and other statistics courses. Not only do these courses no longer validate advanced algebra, but they are not even considered recommended fourth year courses at all.

This decision is especially confusing when we consider an analysis conducted by the University of Chicago based Data Science for Everyone Coalition. The analysis found that the three most prevalent high school data science courses, IDS, YouCubed, and CourseKata, include more standards in the domains of number and quantity algebra functions, modeling, and geometry than the UC Berkeley's undergraduate data science course.

In addition, the analysis found the IDS and CourseKata courses, which are non-recommended fourth year courses, included more statistics and probability standards in the Berkeley course, which confers college credit. Another issue that is not considered in either of the BOARS reports is the treatment of dual enrollment statistics.

Under the new category structure, these transferable college level courses would most likely be considered non-recommended courses in category four, given that their prerequisites consist of k eight math and elementary algebra standards, as noted in the 2016 CSU Quantitative Task Force report.

I strongly urge the University to consider the mixed messages this may send to students and families, especially as the state is investing in increasing the number of students taking dual enrollment courses through the Golden State Pathway Program. From the outside looking in, it appears as though the UC is holding high school students and teachers to a higher expectation than its own undergraduate and community college transfers.

California high schools are responsible to offer a through g courses to meet the needs of all students with aspirations to attend a UC or CSU, not just 132,000 UC applicants referenced in the stage two report. The process for revising the Area C requirements has lacked transparency and representation from those directly impacted by the BOARS decision. Expanding the dialogue to include UC and CSU math education faculty, county coordinators, and high school educators would ensure consistency in how these courses are evaluated in college readiness across our system. Thank you.

Thank you. Dr. Brown, please.

Good morning, Chair Fong, Chair Muratsuchi, and to the entire Higher Education and Committee on Education. My name is Kyndall Brown, and I've been a mathematics educator for over 35 years, having served as a classroom teacher, coach, teacher educator, and professional development provider. I'm currently the executive director of the California Mathematics Project.

I'm here today to speak about a through g requirements and alternative mathematics pathways in high school. At the spring of 2024, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, the world's largest mathematics education organization, released a position statement on teaching data science in high school.

Quoting directly from the statement, ensuring that all students have the mathematical experiences necessary to increase their opportunities for personal and professional success is essential. Data science is a rigorous, engaging, and practical field of study that can be a significant part of a high school student's mathematical experience.

Knowledge of data science is important, and a data science course should be accepted as a high school mathematics course that can be used for credit towards graduation, provided the course includes or builds on previous substantive student work with essential concepts, knowledge, skills, and habits of mind in mathematics and statistics, including those from functions, quantitative literacy, visualizing and summarizing data, statistical inference, and probability. In 2017, the California Mathematics Project received a grant from the California Department of Education to implement the introduction to data science course, or IDS, as a senior level mathematics course in a Southern California School District.

A study was conducted by an independent researcher to examine the extent to which participation in an IDS as a fourth year math course has an impact on college readiness in mathematics. Key findings from the study found that more than two thirds of all students earned a grade of c or better in their IDS course. Students' GPAs for IDS courses were significantly higher than their GPAs for other math courses.

Almost all students met graduation requirements, and more than three quarters of students additionally met UC and CSU admission requirements, and for almost a quarter of the students, their participation in IDS is an essential component of meeting UC admission requirements, and more female than male students met their math readiness standards.

I believe that data science should count as an area C college preparatory course without qualification. If there are mathematicians who feel that the course is not rigorous enough, they should work with high school teachers to revise the course to make it more rigorous as opposed to eliminating such a valuable course. California students will be competing with students from all over the country whose states have incorporated rigorous data science courses into their high school curriculum.

Many of my colleagues are concerned about the extraordinary power that the Board of Admission and Relations with Schools to make decisions which affect millions of students in California but has no representation from CSU, Community College, or the very k-12 schools they claim to be having relations with. The BOARS Committee would benefit by broadening its membership to better represent the diverse teaching and student population of the state. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Aly Martinez.

Good morning. My name is Aly Martinez, and I am the chief program officer of mathematics for Student Achievement Partners, also known as Achieve the Core a national nonprofit that works to transform k-12 literacy and math instruction. Before this role, I was the district math administrator for San Diego Unified, where I led an expansive math initiative to modernized mathematics, and I supported my district as an early innovator, adding data science courses to our system in 2021.

Today, I'm here to address the recent BOARS decision, which brings our state guidance on math courses and pathways backwards. This decision, made without the right people in the room, narrowly focused on a small slice of the broader challenges we see in k-12 math education in our state.

The true obstacles we face in math preparation are systemic and will require intersegmental k-16 collaboration and supported changes by multiple actors at different levels, all at the same time. Very much unlike this decision. I'd like to start by highlighting that California has been at the forefront of modern mathematics by leading the nation in k-12 students enrolled in introductory data science education programs. And we're not alone.

At least 27 states have taken some action to introduce data science to their students. All major k-12 subject associations like NCTM, the American Statistical Association, and the Academic Data Science Alliance have joined this effort also, as well as the National Academies, who have released a national review.

There's even legislation in Congress, with the Data Science and Literacy Act. This BOARS decision stunts California's progress through its narrow focus and preparation for future STEM majors. It is, in fact, a return to the status quo in high school.

The traditional math sequence leading to calculus has served some students well, but the over prioritization of preparation for calculus creates systemic barriers in k-12 that limits students opportunities to experience a wide range of equally important mathematical fields. In today's landscape, data science, data literacy, and AI foundations have a place in the preparation of k-12 students.

Some of this important math exists in our standards today, but it's often deprioritized. Student achievement in data analysis and statistics has been declining nationally for the past decade, even before the pandemic. Today's 8th graders have the same data literacy as 6th graders in 2011.

It's also important to note that this decision has implications that extend in middle school. Most students eligible for taking advanced math courses in high school will, at the ages of 11 and 12 years old, need to take courses that compress three years of math into two.

By design, this compression leaves out important mathematics, and it largely requires a focus on rote memorization and speed instead of relevance and applied mathematics. This is also when, in our educational system, students not in the compacted course will begin to refer to themselves as being in the, quote, dumb class.

It cannot be overstated how this impacts students' mathematical identity and how it influences students' future academic achievement and confidence. This accelerated middle school sequence, not recommended by the authors of the Common Core state standards, is a poorly designed systemic structure that sends a dominant message that math achievement and math achievement and future success only live with a few students, not all.

These marginalizing pillars in our k-12 system are driven by decisions like these from BOARS and the widespread sentiment that taking calculus in high school will improve college admissions potential and is desirable for STEM majors. Now, while calculus can be taken in high school and will be needed for STEM majors, it isn't the only preparation in mathematics that is valued and important to our graduates and their future employers. Nor should it be overly prioritized as the preferred route to college.

Decisions like these have had real impacts for districts like San Diego Unified that have invested in diverse math classes but now are seeing waning interest at sites and expanding course offerings because of the perception that one preparation is better than another. Effectively, this decision will mean fewer math options for students. This BOARS decision should not be the end of this conversation, as there's still much collaboration across k-16 that needs to be done in order to ensure that all students have access to the modern mathematics experiences that they deserve.

Thank you. And last but not least, Ms. Akkaraju.

Good afternoon, chairs and committee, and thank you for this opportunity to speak upon this today. My name is Ananya Akkaraju, a junior at Dublin High School, and I'm representing the youth advocacy organization Generation Up to express our concerns with the BOARS decision regarding a to g mathematics course requirements.

The recent BOARS decision to no longer recognize data science courses in place of algebra two and to not recognize AP statistics as an advanced math course from 2025 onwards was made only days before the State of California adopted their new math framework that included data science courses. I have taken both standard math courses and data science courses, and my time in those classes has been invaluable in exposing me to my passion for mathematics and sparking my interest in data science applications to technology.

And while I was able to get this opportunity and experience of exploring my interests, some students were denied that opportunity because of sudden change, and it is difficult to imagine the impact this decision has on these students. Those students, no matter how few, who wanted to explore their passion for data science and technology, are now required to switch their path in order to be eligible to apply to UCs and CSUs.

And amid this confusion, students must now wonder if data science and computer science make them appear as less competitive applicants to our UC and CSU campuses. Not only does this lead to a tedious process of changing their courses, but it also prevents them from specializing in a possible career field.

Going against the experience the youth hope to achieve from high school, being able to discover their true passions. With the rising demand for experience in machine learning, data science, and statistics, colleges should be acknowledging and supporting a student's journey in these fields, not restricting them with limited courses that don't promote career exploration.

And as a representative of the youth, I strongly urge for change to provide the valuable high school experience that our students seek. It is imperative that the impact on the youth is considered when making these decisions. And I, as a student, believe that this decision ought to change in order to create an a to g requirement system that students know and have confidence in throughout their educational careers. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, everyone. I want to see if Dr. Darling-Hammond, are you still online? Okay, if you are, we cannot hear you. Oh, there we go. Yeah. Thank you. I'd like to start off our committee's questions for this panel with, you know, my primary concern from what we've heard from this hearing so far, which is the lack of coordination between BOARS and our k-12 system. And so I want to start with you, Dr. Hammond, and see if any of the other panelists, we love to hear your thoughts also.

But Dr. Hammond, given your experience with this debate over data science and statistics, what recommendations would you have to change this process to improve the coordination between our higher education and k-12 system so that we can try to avoid a lot of the problems that we just heard from this current panel?

Yeah, I think we have to think about what kind of intersegmental arrangement we can create. Maybe some kind of a coordinating body or something like that that is used around many, many issues that should be better coordinated. As I mentioned, no other state has something like BOARS in particular. So it is kind of unique.

I think if that is going to continue to be the way that UC wants to set its admissions requirements, then thinking through how that is structured. Right now, there are new professors on BOARS every year. The views of BOARS can change as the professors change. It's treated like any other kind of committee. And as I said, there's no k-12 representation or participation across the sector. So I think one thing might be, if that is going to be a key body to ensure that there is more openness and more explicit coordinate of governance.

But I think we need that at the level of the whole higher ed and k-12 sector beyond that committee. Because I was in New York, when I was a Professor at Columbia, the Board of Regents there actually includes higher education, k-12 education, pre-k education, and they can think about the interactions between them. We don't have that system, but we could build some kind of a coordinating structure that allows us to think together about these questions in much more productive ways. I would really advocate for that.

And I just giving these big curriculum issues that I've posed because of the rapid changing of the economy and the workforce and what kids need to be able to know and be able to do. And that's going to be certainly very much in STEM fields, but also in other fields. And we need a way as well to be sort of projecting what's going to happen there, and then thinking about the big curriculum questions that that poses for us.

Could I respond as well? I wholeheartedly agree with Professor Darling-Hammond around this need for there to be much more communication and collaboration across the segments. And since 2018, there have been a group of high school, community college, UC, and CSU faculty that have been meeting under the auspices of the California Mathematics Education Collaborative to really look at policy, course offerings, and intersegmental professional learning.

And one of the things that we are planning in the spring is bringing together high school teachers, community college faculty, CSU and UC faculty to engage in professional learning together. And I think those are the kinds of structures that need to be put in place that will help to, you know, bridge the gap and increase the amount of communication between the segments so that we can have a much more cohesive kind of interaction between one another.

Thank you. I'd like to invite the rest of the panel if he can share any thoughts or.

Yeah, so just kind of building off of the other two comments that have been made is I think that it's important to note that both, I've heard it from the K-12 field. It was mentioned in the BOARS stage two report, and even one of the authors that helped write the Common Core standards from the beginning have all mentioned that algebra two as it sits today is over full of content and unmotivating the students in classrooms.

And so as we think about a process that we are putting in place for that, that should be a core element of this workgroup that comes together is to really talk and examine, is algebra two as it stands today really preparing our students for the future of tomorrow?

Thank you.

I have so many. I have four. But I'll try to be brief. I also believe that the process has to be intersegmental and I would recommend also prioritizing the inclusion of K-12 students and families, in addition to thinking about industry representation and from the University staff, thinking about both math and math education departments. Secondly, you know, as was already stated, our state graduation requirement is two math courses. Area C requires three and recommends four. There should be greater flexibility and exposure within those four courses for students to explore the flavors of math based on their interests and goals.

I liked how you mentioned math identity. This is a major term because so often people make an assumption about their math ability at very young ages. Again, I was an elementary school teacher, everywhere from the grade of third and fourth grade, can they learn their multiplication and division as fast as their peers. And right then, that's when they decide if they're good at math or not. But to say you aren't fast enough or you didn't excel here so therefore you should do this. We know people develop at different stages. Maybe at third grade they weren't able to get those concepts because math is very developmental.

That has to be something that's taken into consideration in the process, is what are the requirements. Third, there needs to be guidance and professional development for advocates that are around students. Those are counselors, teachers, caregivers to support students in being the agents of their learning and course selection versus having the system decide where they go and what they have access to.

In addition to, as we think about kind of the broadened kind of the new modern mathematics, there is a need for professional learning support to educators to deepen and broaden their understanding of statistics, data science and AI foundations so that they can in fact teach the curriculum of the future. Lastly, if we value students choice and agency, we really need to rethink the current hierarchy of advanced courses.

We are operating broadly with outdated assumptions that need to be replaced with new definitions that recognize modern mathematics in new courses, but also in existing courses. So to what Cole said about algebra two, there is a need to look also at the existing courses and the mathematics that is in there as well.

Thank you.

Yeah, I'm definitely building upon what everyone else has mentioned. I feel that like as a student, these A to G requirements, they really impact the youth. And at the end of the day, like the course requirements that are set, it kind of determines what courses we take and also essentially determines our path in high school and what we plan to major in in the future on our eventual career.

So I feel that, you know, possibly having a student representative, like Miss Martinez mentioned earlier, having, you know, students and families be able to talk about how, you know, the potential, like, policy change or anything could possibly impact them, I think that's really important to have that perspective as well when making these decisions, because, you know, at the end of the day, students are the most impacted by this. And so I really believe that having, you know, a youth voice regarding these decisions is really, really important.

Thank you. Mrs. Quirk-Silva.

Thank you all to the panelists. And there's so much to say, but I'm hearing some big words like overhaul the system, communication, collaboration. This is my 10th year on the California State Assembly. I've been on Higher Ed now for different periods, not the entire 10 years. I have Cal State Fullerton in my district, two community colleges, Fullerton College, Cypress College, and to be honest, it's the first time I've heard of BOARS. So, number one, the transparency there, we have to be able, as a legislative body, be able to not ask, but demand transparency.

We have commissions up and down the state, bodies that are whether appointed or elected, that, yes, we are in a new timeframe where we are demanding, whether it's meetings that are being televised, whether it's public transparency, public comment, and that BOARS isn't operating in this aspect is highly concerning, particularly because of the impact, as we said, on these decisions.

Again, going back to the timeframe of this very short timeframe, where this decision is being made and implemented. Now, it may be assumed that, well, we had a planning year, it's really not going to affect, but every one of these decisions does affect students, faculty, instructors, districts to make a decision and say, well, we have from March or February to August, this is a very short time in education for everybody involved, but there's many things that were mentioned, everything from having the instructors that are prepared, from reimagining math.

So to really look at how we are presenting math in the way that we have been doing it, we have seen that we don't have a lot of success. And if we can reimagine, as was said, look at other countries, look at other states. But my question would be to both Chairs is how do we do this and what kind of enforcement can we have over this?

Because all too often we participate in these hearings and if nothing else that we get out of today is perhaps some type of effort of delay because we have to take this seriously or we will be shutting the door to thousands of students for potential higher ed in these, these fields of stem technology and really the future, the future of the skills we're going to need. So with that, I am hoping as a Committee, both Education K-12 and Higher Ed, that we can demand some type of delay here.

Thank you. Chair Fong.

Thank you so much, Chair Muratsuchi. And thank you for your comments Assemblymember Quirk-Silva. Just to amplify that as well, in the first panel, we did ask a number of questions about delaying, possible delay in the implementation of this as well. And I think to amplify Assemblymember Quirk-Silva's comments, the transparency, the efforts there to make sure that folks are having their input, the implementation and smooth implementation of this, this is creating confusion up and down the state, as we just heard from our panelists here and from Chair Muratsuchi mentioning as well the impacts that this is having on our millions of students here in California.

So I think as a Legislature, as a Higher Ed body, we definitely would look at opportunities and considerations and the possible delay of this, but also to really make sure that we're providing those opportunities for the K-12 school district to provide those opportunities for greater communication, collaboration, coordination has been mentioned. I think with the BOARS Committee.

The fact that we also were hearing different things about clarification versus new policy, this is just, I know that was semantics, but that's really impacting the lives of a lot of folks here up and down the state. And so when we look at the governance of the UC regions having the opportunity to implement new policy, I think this is a critical point that we're hearing this robust hearing here today. To hear what is happening up and down the state in terms of this new implementation and the last few years that have been very challenging for all students in education, all faculty Administration.

We've gone through some of the most challenging times in the past few years, and to have this on top of everything else, we have to make sure we get this right in terms of the implementation. So I welcome any comments and feedbacks in terms of how we can possibly look at delaying this, to make sure that we give the school districts and administrators, faculty and staff time to digest everything and to have the opportunity to make this more smooth. So thank you, Assemblymember Quirk-Silva, for your comments about that, and we'll look at any legislative opportunities around this as well. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Without seeing any other requests for questions, I wanted to turn to, you know, to, especially to those that are working or have worked with our school districts. You know, I should have asked this with the first panel, but I'll ask it, you know, from the perspective of the districts that are implementing these policies. You know, Doctor Swenson, try to clarify, at least in my mind, that BOARS doesn't accept or adopt policies, that only the regents can adopt policies. And yet, when they put out these decisions of the BOARS Committee, from the school district's perspective, is there a distinction between what BOARS adopts versus what the regents adopt?

No. It's incredibly influential. It took over three years of regional collaboration across many different organizations, across San Diego, with our families, with our teachers, districts, multiple rounds of feedback, working with the authors to bring in the data science course, in addition to talking to UCSD and San Diego State and our local community college district, it took three years for us to get to a place where our system felt very confident about the data science courses that we brought in.

And within moments of putting out that memo, it undid quite a lot in our system, including a change that we had made to our graduation requirements in San Diego Unified to include the data science course as a valid course offering that students could take in lieu of algebra two.

And if I could just add one more thing addressing this issue of math identity. Many of the students who are taking IDS as a fourth, introduction to data science, as a fourth year course are students who more than likely would not have taken a fourth year math course because of their experiences with mathematics, and many of them had really weak math identities.

And what we're finding is that by taking these data science course, it's really reinvigorating and reenergizing their interest in mathematics. For the first time, they're seeing mathematics as something that is practical and useful for them. And if anything, these courses are actually turning more students on or reinvigorating their interest in taking more mathematics. And so that's something we need to keep in mind as well.

Yeah, definitely. I agree with what you just said, especially when it comes to reinvigorating their interest in mathematics. I know that when I was taking algebra two in high school and then later on, calculus, I know a lot of students often, like, those who weren't taking higher level math, often felt that, you know, where would I ever use, like, calculus in my daily life unless I'm, like, an engineer or an architect?

Like, I don't have any use to take that class. But I think allowing students to take statistics and data science as well really allows them to, like, look at possible career options for them, especially with, like, the rise of AI, machine learning, like, being at the forefront of technology is, like, extremely important, especially for students who, you know, usually don't find a lot of interest in calculus.

And though it is necessary for these fields, at least they're able to have another option to kind of get more involved in data science and really see what these careers are about. So I think it's really important to have these courses and have them be considered so that students do have these possible career options outside of taking these difficult, like, AP calculus courses.

Yeah, I just. Miss Akkaraju. I feel like I'm listening to my daughter who's taking algebra two now, and she's planning on working, taking calculus at some point, because that's what she's being told, that in order to apply to competitive colleges, that she needs to take the most rigorous courses. But, you know, Miss Martinez, I hear, you know, I noted in your comments about how, you know, somehow sending the message that data science is less than rigorous is sending the message that it's like the dumb class.

What's interesting is there's. Most of the data science courses that exist are very much aligned to the existing statistics standards, which do exist. So I think that's a misnomer. That's really important to state that there are standards for data science, but there is more work to be done there. It is a new field. And I think also one of the things that I think is really important is that as students are entering into 9-12, there are systemic functions, as you've named, connected to other challenges in K-12 that limit students opportunities. It could be connected to electives, language learning.

But what happens is, if, functionally, one student does need to repeat one course effectively, they will have no options. And so I worry about when we think about one of the previous panelists had talked about students can take the three years in mathematics and that won't be held against them. But in many universities admissions, they do look at what the highest mathematics course is that's offered in that space. And so if the system cannot create space for students to take those courses, it actually, in my opinion, it's creating a space where they cannot see that success, they cannot hit that opportunity. They will not get the points for having taken the highest math course, though they may. That is of no fault of their own. That is actually a fault of the system.

Yeah. Thank you. And I just want to clarify that my daughter does not want to take calculus. And she's saying, dad, why do I need to take calculus when I'm not going to be a STEM major? You know? And so, yeah, it seems like expanding, relevant math coursework would have a lot of merit, although, you know, it sounds like we still have a lot of work to do to.

Can I comment on that one.

Yes, Doctor Hammond.

You know, Doctor Swenson did confirm that a rush to calculus is not necessary. And this is a conversation that has been had both by BOARS, which published an earlier statement about the most important thing is to understand the math that you take and to go deeply and to master the Common Core standards. And if you take calculus and it's appropriate for you and it leads you in your path, that's great, but it shouldn't be a rush. And the various statistical and mathematical societies have also kind of confirmed that. And universities, including you, just heard from Doctor Swenson, who is the current head of BOARS. So that is partly.

Calculus is, of course, very important for some fields that we want kids to have access to it. Most colleges across the country will say, if you are prepared for it. And I think that's what this conversation and concern has been. If you're prepared for it, you can take it here, in college, you don't have to have taken it in high school, you need to have had the prerequisites. And that's what I think the faculty are very concerned about and have good reasons to be concerned about.

But it's also true that statistics is used in many, many more occupations. I'm a social scientist, you know, statistics is the coin of the realm for me and lots of the students I train. But you need it also in a wide variety of fields and data science, increasingly so. So it's like we have to get some sense of how to have a conversation about the breadth of mathematics.

As was said, and the various kinds of mathematics that can be important for various fields and maintain the rigor that allows people who are going to go through into a STEM field to get access to the courses they need to do that. And that does not have to be an either or. I think the designations that were adopted in this year of the BOARS considerations that there's this category called 'other math', which was originally in the not recommended category. There was a recommended category, and then there was another category.

Also has the effect of giving people these concerns that if I take statistics, you know, if I take data sets, if I take financial algebra, if I take any number of other courses, discrete mathematics, that may be very important for some fields, that that will not be considered adequate by admissions.

Now, UC has said in multiple communications that admissions will not be looking at that, will not be taking that into account. But I think that's part of the miscommunication or lack of coherence, lack of conversation that is causing these confusions and, you know, potential problematic steps for many, many students and many, many schools.

Yeah. And I just want to close my thoughts and see if anyone else has any other questions or comments. But, I mean, I think it's one thing for the BOARS Committee to see themselves, again, as the gatekeepers of academic rigor in terms of mathematics education, but again, underscoring the impact and the influence of their decisions in terms of the messages that they may not intend on sending.

But what the students hear in terms of, you know, what, you know, what do I need to do to go to college and how they plan their lives. And I think, again, I go back to my earlier point that whether it's BOARS or any other decision making body, that we can't just focus on what they intend to do, but also they need to be student centered in terms of what students are, how students are going to interpret that, and what that's going to mean.

In terms of, you know, districts, you know, planning or, you know, their attempts to try to develop new, you know, courses like, like in the data science fields, which I think brings us back to the need for more intersegmental collaboration in this space. Any other questions or comments for this panel? Any final comments from the panel?

So, in kind of in preparation for today, I actually sat into a listening session with counselors in my local area wanting to hear from them. What concerns did they have? They participated, many of them, in the September UC counselors session. They saw to validate that presentation, and many of the sentiments that I shared today are still concerns.

Even after sitting through those counselor sessions. They are asking questions like, I have an international student that transferred as a sophomore now taking pre calculus, going to take Calc AB this year. Am I going to really have to put them in a geometry class their senior year to validate geometry?

Is that going to be a requirement for me to do that, to make that exception? Their big ask, questions that they had was, can we have a consistent explanation of what the rules are so that they know when they're meeting with their freshmen families that they are not perceived as lying to them because the rules are changing on them by time.

They're interacting with them again as they're juniors. Because now it's putting our counselors in a really bad spot to now change guidance on the students that they're serving. And so they were hoping for at the very least, a delayed to impact the next upcoming freshman class. So they had time to set very clear guidelines with their families from the beginning so they don't break that trust.

Yeah, I really strongly agree with the delay. I mean, like, as a student, you know, I know that myself and my peers would definitely, really appreciate having, like, a system that we know and, like that we have confidence in and that, you know, when we sit down with our counselors in March deciding our courses, we know that, you know, I still have to fulfill these credits.

I need to take a visual arts class. I graduate. I think having that confidence and knowing that these are the things I need to do before I graduate is really, really important. And that's why, you know, this delay would be really beneficial for students and for counselors and for, you know, administrators alike.

Because we know that, you know, we can plan out according to this decision and that, you know, I feel like Administration can actually help the students, you know, and have the counselors really do their job well because they, they have this plan that they're going to follow and everything's been implemented carefully and has been reviewed carefully.

And I know that making these changes takes a long time because I've worked with my district on implementing the State Seal of Civic Engagement, and we've been doing that for over a year. And it's just so much criteria and so many things that we have to just keep reviewing and making adjustments to.

And so time is really, really important when it comes to making these decisions and implementing them in a way that, you know, we don't have problems in the future because we didn't have time to go over something. And so making sure that students really have everything they need to be successful is really important.

And I would just recommend that BOARS, this Committee, these committees look into states like Virginia and Utah that do have rigorous high school data science courses that are part of their college preparatory offerings and see what we can learn from them.

Can I have one more thing? I think that the timing of this. February to August is also very troubling to me for the course submission. School districts, they already have their courses in there. Is there a way, if this is the timeline, that they can actually receive feedback on their already submitted courses so that we don't have to resubmit every single course that we've ever submitted that would be advanced mathematics? And their master schedules are often set in the spring. So if we're waiting until the summer to give them when yes or no to a course offering, those classes have already been set in the master schedule, and students are already planning to take them in the fall. So it's not just when school starts in August.

Thank you, Doctor. Yes, Darling-Hammond.

If I could just add to that. I think, you know, our higher ed colleagues, you know, very, I think, sincerely believe this was a very small decision. Nothing has changed. You know, we're still requiring the algebra, geometry, algebra two, but all of the other ways by which the reclassification is going on, which was an additional piece of this, which, as was said, will not be fully decided until August, have major impacts, as we're hearing in k-12.

And they could not know about all these impacts because they had no way of being in communication with the people who would be affected by the decision. So I think it just really makes clear the reason why we need a new process for collaboration and for communication that enables people who are making decisions to know what the impacts of their decisions are likely to be.

All right, thank you very much. And with that, we'd like to thank all of the panelists for your testimony, and I'd like to turn it back over to Chair Fong for the next panel.

Thank you so much, Chair Muratsuchi, and thank you so much again to the panelists for a really robust discussion, highlighting the need for intersegmental coordination, really providing the guidance to the counselors, the process, and to Dr. Darling-Hammond as well for joining us as well, and to all our panelists. Thank you.

Then we're going to move into our final panel, impact of BOARS mathematics decisions on admission requirements. I'd like to welcome Cristopher Espino, University of California Student Association and UCLA student, and Joshua Hagen, vice president of policy and advocacy for the Campaign for College Opportunity. Is April joining us? And April Grommo, the assistant vice chancellor of strategic enrollment management at the CSU, who will be joining us via Webex. Thank you. Mr. Espino, when you're ready, please begin. Welcome.

Good morning, Chair Fong and Chair Muratsuchi and Members of the Committee. My name is Cristopher Espino, and I'm at UCLA double majoring in political science and education and social transformation studies. I currently serve as the academic affairs commissioner at UCLA, representing over 30,000 students, and I'm originally from Tustin, California. I'm here on behalf of the University of California Student Association, which is the representative body for more than 230,000 undergraduate students at the University of California.

As you all know, in July 2023, the UC Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools, otherwise known as BOARS, decided to disallow the acceptance of AP statistics or data sciences as a substitute for algebra two. Yet, a majority of high school seniors in California are unable to complete their A 3G requirements in time to enroll at the University of California, many of which disproportionately tend to be low income students of color.

We don't believe the UC should lower its standards and acknowledge that the completion of algebra two under the Area C requirement provides valuable preparation for students, especially those who pursue STEM careers. However, we also believe every California student should have access to advanced math courses in high school to have the opportunity to satisfy these requirements.

But regrettably, this is not the reality today. For instance, the Los Angeles Unified School District is one of the many districts across California who will see a disparate impact due to this decision. 36% of districts' graduates took a data science or statistic course as seniors between 2016 and 2018, a proportion that may very well be higher today.

Limiting the UC's acceptance of these courses threatens to negatively impact minority and rural communities ability to access a world class UC education. The word student shows up three times in the minutes of BOARS meetings where this decision was made, and quite frankly, three times for a decision that's going to impact students is even well within itself alarming.

The word equity doesn't show up a single time. If we remember nothing today, let us remember that the University of California is a place of learning, and we cannot possibly create a system that is equitable or student centered sans keeping students front and center of the decision making.

On behalf of the University of California undergraduate students, I beseech the Legislature to consider legislative solutions to the lack of requirements placed on faculty to justify with data this decision that impact millions of students across the State of California. We must ensure that decisions are substantiated with evidence and an analysis of potential impact.

To our knowledge, the UC has not conducted an adequate analysis to assess the impact of this change on underrepresented, minoritized students who already have less access to upper division math courses like calculus and are more likely to have taken data science or statistics to meet the suggested four year of math for admission.

We urge the legislatives we urge for legislative solutions to allow for more time for school districts to ensure all students have access have the access they need to meet their A through G requirements, not just the students who happen to live in a district with resources to do so. Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair Fong, Chair Muratsuchi, Members. Thank you for the opportunity to be a part of the conversation today. My name is Josh Hagen, and I serve as the vice president of policy and advocacy at the Campaign for College Opportunity.

We're a statewide policy, research, and advocacy organization dedicated to ensuring that all students, regardless of race, ethnicity, income, or zip code, have the opportunity to go to college and succeed. So I'm here to provide some additional context into the UC's recent shortcomings in updating the math eligibility requirements under area c of their admissions policy.

Specifically, I'd like to take a few minutes to lay out the timeline that this decision was made under, provide an overview of the challenges that the UC's approach presented to key educational partners and to broader efforts to ensure equitable access to college opportunity. And I want to save time for this at the end.

I really want to open up a dialogue around considerations for establishing guardrails to ensure that we don't find ourselves unnecessarily in a similar situation in the future. So I know we've heard a lot today about the timeline that BOARS took. I will not go into detail about some of those decisions, but I really want to underscore where this decision started and where we've ended today. In July 2023, the UC Academic Senate's Board of Admissions or Relations with Schools, or BOARS, voted to convene a workgroup to evaluate math preparation under Area C.

The goal was to assess whether certain data science courses could substitute for the advanced algebra requirement and to determine if math admissions criteria needed revision. But in that same meeting, BOARS appeared to undermine that decision by preemptively voting that data science courses could not fulfill the advanced algebra requirement.

So this really underscores some of the concerns that we've heard around public conversations, transparency, and agenda setting, and involving the right stakeholders in these conversations. So we can fast forward to today, October 2024. The first panel indicated that they had shared new guidance with the field just last week.

I really want to underscore that is 15 months later, that is 15 months of confusion for K through 12 partners trying to understand and clarify how these new policies will be implemented. And that prolonged confusion is clearly still playing out today. So want to take a couple of moments to highlight some of the challenges with the approach, right? The timeline is in itself challenging, but the approach that was taken is really where we see some of the biggest concerns. First and foremost, the UC failed to define a problem that is worth solving.

At no point did the UC identify whether current undergraduate students were underprepared in math, if their retention and graduation outcomes were lagging. There was no analysis of how students who took data science courses or statistics fared at the UC compared to those students that took a calculus track.

So this begs the question, what problem was the UC trying to solve or trying to address by altering the math admissions criteria? After today's discussion, that problem still doesn't seem clear. Second, the UC's process was alarmingly siloed, as many have pointed out today. The UC and faculty decision makers who were ultimately driving this process did not engage critical education stakeholders like the California Department of Education, K through 12 districts, or students to assess the feasibility in the impact of changes in math requirements.

Additionally, they failed to examine the demographic characteristics of students currently taking data science courses or whether these courses were improving equity in admissions. And most critically of all, the UC failed to analyze the potential disparate impact, as Cris mentioned, on the impacts that changes on black, Latinx, Native American and other historically minoritized students who still face the most significant structural barriers to equal access and opportunity.

It is imperative that we understand the implications this decision will have on students' ability to access the UC, both from how these changes will play out on paper and how they will play out in practice to impact not just students eligibility, but the competitiveness of their application to access the UC.

Today, fewer than half of students are supported to complete a through g coursework, and more than 8% of California high schools struggle to offer adequate a through g courses. And that is today. That is without the changes that are being advanced by BOARS that we're talking about in this hearing.

So now I want to open up the conversation or start to plant some of the seeds around a dialogue around what we really view as the need for legislative oversight here. And the conversation we're having today speaks to a broader and more systemic problem.

This is not the first time we're having conversations that feel very similar to us. The UC's process for updating Area C in many ways mirrors the California State University's 2019 attempt to add an additional year of quantitative reasoning to university admissions requirements. There's real similarities here.

Both examples reflect higher education systems lacking a comprehensive, coordinated framework for for assessing the impact of potential admissions policy changes and a framework that's grounded in equity, transparency, and ultimately, accountability to demonstrate the need for and impact of a proposed change with data. Similar to the themes we've heard today, the CSU's quantitative reasoning proposal failed to identify a problem, failed to engage K-12 stakeholders, or conduct a disparate impact analysis.

So after three years of debate led by us at the Campaign for College Opportunity, the Education Trust West, the California Department of Education supporting, along with K-12 districts, CSU made the decision to withdraw that proposal. During those three years, the CSU did what should have been done from the start. They chose to conduct a disparate impact analysis on prospective students, collaborate with K-12 stakeholders. With no clear rationale in the demonstration of that disparate impact, the CSU had no choice but to withdraw the proposal.

So what we're really seeing now is a troubling pattern that's emerging of raising admissions barriers without sufficient transparency or equity considerations. Just from a public process and good governance perspective, I just want to underscore that the only time that advocates, such as ourselves, or even k-12 partners and other stakeholders were made aware of and engaged in these prospective admissions changes was via public meetings that we have access to, which is the UC Board of Regents and with the respecting governing boards of the systems. Agendized discussions sometimes only last 10 minutes.

They end up being pushed to subsequent meetings, and only governing board Members are able to engage in discussion with the UC and CSU. Stakeholders are limited to 1 minute of public comment. This process limits governing board members and systems from receiving critical feedback, insight, and data, which emphasizes the lack of transparency and the real siloed action that we're seeing discussed today. So from our vantage point, this is a pattern that now requires legislative oversight and action.

So we would urge you to consider establishing a framework for assessing proposed changes to the UC and CSU admissions policies that mandates that foundation of defining a problem with data, clear ensure transparency, and ensure collaboration and oversight into the potential impact of these changes.

And if I just can take one more moment, I think really want to appreciate Assembly Member Quirk-Silva. You urging the panelists to frame the conversations we're having here today on the impact that they will have on students. I think that should be a clear charge to all of us. And in the first panel, I heard something that's still weighing heavily on me, that this decision from UC BOARS will, and I wrote this down because it stuck with me, that it will not do too much damage.

With all due respect, we were asked to consider the impact on students, and I think we really need to reframe how we're thinking about these conversations. Not doing too much damage is a disservice to the students who are furthest from opportunity and will be pushed further from equal opportunity as a result of this decision. So with that, happy to help answer any questions and thank you for the time.

Thank you so much. Next up, we have April Grommo, the assistant vice chancellor of strategic enrollment management at the CSU system, who is joining us via Webex. April, are you there? Welcome.

Yes, thank you. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Thank you for allowing me an opportunity to comment today. I'd just like to provide some foundation about CSU and happy to answer any questions. So one of the questions that was raised to us is whether or not the CSU has similar concerns or views as the UC.

And so I just want to provide a little bit of background. First, it's important to note that both the CSU and the UC is test free for admission. So high school academic preparation and grades are, in essence, the sole criteria for admission and the foundation for student success in college.

The CSU Math Council, which is part of our statewide Academic Senate, did put forth a resolution in April 2023 that is similar to the concerns that were raised in the UC reports. We also discussed this at our CSU Admissions Advisory Council meeting earlier in 2024.

The CSU Admissions Advisory Council is the CSU body that oversees admission policy, which includes administrators, faculty, and student representation. Also, it's probably important to note that we did have CSU faculty from Fresno State, San Diego State, Cal State Northridge on the second UC Workgroup report. CSU admissions requirements for math currently have not changed.

We currently require algebra, geometry, and algebra two, or integrated math one through three, and in a senior year of math is highly recommended, whether or not that be a quantitative reasoning, data science course, statistics course, because we really don't want students to have a large gap in their math or quantitative reasoning courses between, say, their sophomore year, junior year, and their senior year.

Currently, statistics, which also includes data science, can be taken for the third year of math instead of algebra two. It's also important to note that CSU math validation rules, which is something that probably high school counselors are highly aware of but not a lot of other people, have always been more generous at the CSU.

So a grade of c or better in the second semester of geometry will validate the entire year of geometry, and secondly, an advanced math course would validate the entire three years of math. Students can also take a college level course at a community college to fulfill their math requirement.

The CSU is starting to review freshman applicant enrollment and retention data to determine high school math taking patterns, admissions, and success once they are at a CSU. But that data review is just starting. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you so much. This is Vice Chancellor Grommo. Thank you to all the panelists for the presentation here today. I do have one question before I open it up to my colleagues. In terms of the changes to the Area C math validation to the panelists, do you view the changes to the Area C math validation a change in admission content to the UC system? And if so, how do you hope changes to UC admission content is decided going forward?

I can take that question first, and if others would like to jump in. The short answer is yes, that is a change to admissions eligibility. I think we've heard different semantics thrown around of is this policy, is this practice, is this a clarification? But at the end of the day, yes, this is moving the goalpost for students, for parents, for practitioners on a timeline that we've heard clearly for k through 12 will not work. Right. And so this is raising the bar, however, we would like to define it.

I think, in terms of legislative intervention here, and I think I use that term not lightly, but again, this is a pattern that we've now established, right? That the systems without clear venues to have these coordinated conversations in a public and transparent way, we fall back onto what we know.

We have these conversations in silos. And I want to acknowledge that these are hardworking faculty and practitioners who are doing the best that they can with the systems they've been handed, right. And so if we don't think broader about how we are going to not force conversation, but encourage and mandate transparent collaboration, this cycle will continue to repeat itself.

Thank you for your comments. Did you want to add anything to that?

Yes, thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I completely concur with that sentiment. It's interesting to me, sitting here today and listening to the panel, and it's interesting because I also wrote down the not too much damage quote because it led me to think, to start contemplating some of the messages and some of the statements that Assembly Member Quirk-Silva mentioned.

And that's about how can we get, how can we ensure that decisions that we make and that decisions, that we make do not impact those communities that are already impacted by the systems that already exist. One of the things that I think is imperative moving forward, as my colleague pointed out, is coordinated conversations. Making sure that students are in the space. I recently discovered that AP statistics, even if you took in high school, take the AP exam, if you get a five, at least UCLA does not recognize that as satiating AP statistics.

And so it's interesting what, I would like there to be more transparency with respect to what it means to, what it means for them to have a good math, I guess, background. Because even at, last week, I was actually at a conference in Boston, and one of the things that I learned about the universities in Massachusetts is that they really value AP statistics and courses of this nature. Earlier I heard that it was thrown out there that we were really ranked really lowly in mathematics.

And so I think that getting rid of these very important courses, especially in a rapidly technological moving society, is really counterintuitive and also works against students of color who are constantly finding ways to make it into these places and also understand what it means, what they need in order to get into these places as well.

Thank you for your content and insights there. And I have a follow up question. This is for our Assistant Vice Chancellor Grommo. The question, Assistant Vice Chancellor Grommo, I see that you're on I believe, is will the CSU follow the UC to remove data science and AP statistics as an advanced math course? And will data science be allowed to replace algebra two?

So data science and statistics currently can be used for algebra two or in lieu of algebra two for the third year of math. As I shared, we are currently reviewing and looking at data before we even look at making any type of decision in this direction. The other thing I'll just share is that the CSU uses the UC CMP data and behind it is also called what's called Discipline Codes.

So in order for us to determine whether or not a student has met CSU admissions requirements, we do need to make sure that those Discipline Codes that we receive in that data can be used for this math validation process. So as more information is coming out from the UC, we have to analyze that and determine what we are able to do from a math validation perspective.

Okay, thank you so much for that comment, Assistant Vice Chancellor Grommo, in terms of the math validation and getting the data there. Colleagues, any... Yes, Assembly Member Quirk-Silva.

Can you, can you repeat that? From the CSU, what is required exactly to be admitted to CSU as a freshman in the math?

Currently, our math requirements are either algebra one, geometry, and algebra two, integrated mathematic 1, 2, and 3. And instead of integrated math three, or algebra two, students can take a course that is coded as statistics, which also includes data science. And then we also strongly encourage students to take a fourth year of math quantitative reasoning so that they are not having a large gap in their math or quantitative reasoning course taking before they start college.

Thank you. So I'm hearing that they, in fact, you will count data sciences as part of their math admissions.

That is currently the case. And as I also shared, we are starting to review poll data of students math taking patterns, as well as their admissions rates and their student success once they become a CSU student. So we want to look at the data before we even make a decision in this direction.

Thank you. I do want to follow up on something I said earlier, which was being as part of the legislative body for now a decade. I am recalling that we did, in fact, hear about, at one point, CSU looking into the quantitative reasoning, and there was quite a uproar about that, as some of you might remember.

And that was, in essence, with a lot of discussion, there was a decision to not move forward. And that being said, I would really highly recommend that we go back to the drawing board and really look at what this decision that has recently been made, the impact on students, as your comments made. Students are why we exist.

Whether it's in k 12 or higher ed, we are there to educate. Not all students start at the starting block in the same place, and they don't all finish the same. If you use a developmental philosophy, we know that there are growth depending on their experiences.

And sometimes, like we said, and I'm going to keep repeating, and I'm not sure the young lady that was there that used the word math identity. That really should be a very important vocabulary that we start to talk about is how do we build that from the time kids are very young, preschool years, but all the way through college years. And understanding, as was mentioned, that when we are looking to the future, whether it's a AI, other technologies, yes, math is going to be part of it.

But what is the whole vision of how we can create math? We know we now are going to have financial math. We know there's more interest now in young people looking at investing. Never heard of that before, with crypto, with all of these apps. And yet we have been very stagnant in how we teach math.

I know there was a program in elementary school where they were combining math with music and science and not doing the chapters that we typically did and mixing them up because some students are better in one area of math, say geometry and basics of algebra, but maybe not the computation.

So I think it is an opportunity for us to really do something big. Now that begs the question of what do we do legislatively? Because it's not so easy. But I'll just make the analogy to housing. Seems like there's nothing similar with housing and math, right, other than it cost a lot of money to buy a house.

But the truth is, we saw that we were doing so many things in silos and housing that finally the legislative body stepped in and said, no, we are going to have a commissioner of housing. We are going to, in fact, make sure that people are talking about and communicating. We've had audits.

We've had all types of ways to say we have to do more with the resources we have. So I'd say that analogy to mathematic instruction from K-12 to college is imperative. Because if we are not talking, and we can say this all day long, we're still going to have the K-12 bodies making decisions.

We're going to have UC's and CSUs making their own. I don't know how you get everybody together, so I'm not here to say I know how to do that. But I would say it's imperative that we talk to each other, keeping students at the center of all of these decisions. But I want to thank you for your presentations. Both of you, highly accomplished, and really proud of you. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Assembly Member Quirk-Silva. Assembly Member Muratsuchi, Chair Muratsuchi.

Thank you. I have a question for the Campaign for College Opportunity. Mr. Espino shared the data that 36% of LAUSD graduates, if I heard you right, I heard you say that 36% of LAUSD graduates took data science or statistics. Is it... Well, I guess maybe starting with Mr. Espino. I mean, is that, was that in lieu of taking any pre calculus or calculus?

Yeah, the data is just that I have available is that 36% of them did take the course. That doesn't account for whether or not it was in lieu or not.

Okay. So then turning to the Campaign for College Opportunity. I mean, is there data showing that in, you know, more districts with higher populations of socioeconomically disadvantaged students, that there is a higher rate of taking data science or statistics in lieu of pre-calculus and calculus?

Yeah, I think specific to your question of in lieu of. That's something that we would, we can follow up and find the appropriate data there. I think most likely that would be tied to other factors that we've talked to today. Right. Teacher credentials, teacher pipelines. Right. Like, there are really very narrowly defined problems that go district by district or even zip code by zip code. And so I think that level of data I don't have in front of me today, but we can follow up.

Okay, but when you were saying that the BOARS, in your words, failed to analyze a disparate impact with no data to show what problem existed to justify the math criteria change, are you calling on the need for data to show that the students were somehow less prepared to, you know, successfully graduate, get their degrees? I mean, is that the type of data that, what kind of data? Were you looking to justify the problem?

Yes. So to justify the problem, right. From our perspective, the UC did not adequately or at all identify, is there a challenge or a gap in terms of incoming students' UC level of preparation in math? And were there any outcomes as those students persisted and made it to graduation?

If the UC has data on, if students in different courses were withdrawing at greater rates or struggling in a different way, then I think we might be having a different conversation today. But it really feels like we're building the plane as we try to fly it. We're looking back and saying, is there data that can now justify this decision that has already been made and put forward by BOARS?

All right, thank you.

Thank you so much, Assembly Member Muratsuchi. Any further questions or comments from colleagues? Thank you so much to all our panelists for a robust discussion. Really appreciate your comments and insights and for your time here today. Next up, we will move to item number five, public comment. I would now like to invite members of the public to have an opportunity to provide public comment. Each member will have no more than two minutes to provide public comments. Welcome.

My name is Jelani Nelson. I'm professor and division chair of computer science at UC Berkeley. My presentation has two parts. Part one, Chair Muratsuchi and Dr. Darling-Hammond both lamented poor coordination between k-12 and higher ed. Senator Ochoa Bogh's Senate Bill 1411 this legislative cycle would have helped fix this.

Your committees agreed by unanimously passing the bill, and it also passed unanimously on the Assembly and Senate floors. Yet the governor vetoed it. So, Chair Muratsuchi and Dr. Darling-Hammond, please share your concerns with the governor's office. Part two.

I would like to make the committees aware of several pro-equity voices that are consistent with the decision of the UC to revoke approvals for certain specific math data science courses. Ms. Warden, Jeanice Warden has shared my packet of documents with today's Assembly Members. It's in front of you, and I've highlighted key sentences with orange marker.

That's this packet. It contains the following, all centered on equity in support of BOARS action. One, the Black Engineering... These are letters from one, the Black Engineering and Science Alumni Club at UC Berkeley. Two, the majority of black faculty across the UC system in fields closest to data science.

Three, leadership from the system wide Cal State Academic Senate, representing faculty at all 23 Cal State campuses. Four, President of the Cal Alumni Association. Five, a formal resolution from the Cal State system wide Academic Senate, which asked BOARS to revoke these courses, and I wonder if Ms. Grommo's office is aware of CSU's own resolution.

Six, a Boston Globe article. Please take a look. Also, Ms. Martinez and Ms. Akkaraju mentioned the importance of AI foundations. My packet also includes an additional letter signed by tech leaders such as Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, and other top executive AI leaders from Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, and more, celebrating the recent BOARS action.

The letter is online at Math Matters dot AI. Lastly, this hearing has focused on concerns regarding the 2023 decision of BOARS, but there's mistakenly been little focus on the 2020 guidance, which violated both state standards and UC's own regulations.

In my opinion, 2020 happened because of weak conflict of interest rules, both at the UC and at the State Board of Education, which allowed data science curriculum creators with vested interests to have undue influence in drafting both UC admissions policy and the California math framework.

This opinion is backed by emails released via the Public Records Act and Senate Bill 1412, also, by Ochoa Bogh, would have helped strengthen COI rules, and it too also passed unanimously in your committees and on the legislative fours, but was also vetoed by the governor. So please ask the Governor about that. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Brian Conrad. I'm a math professor at Stanford and the director of undergraduate studies for math there for the past 11 years. I've spoken with many faculty in quantitative fields at UC's, Cal States, and private colleges. Data science and economics degrees across the UC system require calculus.

One can't even enter the data science major at UCLA until completing multivariable calculus, making it totally out of reach for anyone using the now revoked validations. Calculus is a core foundation for real data science, AI, and much beyond engineering. The faculty workgroup report does not prohibit data science courses from future validation of other courses.

It rather says that certain data science courses don't meet that bar for algebra two content, and it encourages the creation of new such courses. IDS's own creator told me the course was designed for grades 9 and 10. The purpose of validation of one course by another entails substantially building upon that prior course. The core issue with the data science courses, whose approval to validate algebra two is revoked, is they don't meet any reasonable notion of such validation.

The faculty workgroup report discusses this, and UC has a 6% exceptions process in admissions. Clarity about what course content in high school provides actual readiness for four year quantitative college degrees, including economics and data science, not just STEM, is crucial and is what the CSU Academic Senate resolution and content experts from across California have been warning about.

The new policy solves a problem. It prevents an explosion of underpreparedness for quantitative degrees, nipping it in the bud. It also grandfathers in those who made past choices without penalty and ensures that future policy provides real equity for degree access. The October 2020 email from a member of the Faculty Committee whose work informed the BOARS vote at that time acknowledged the past validation approvals for algebra two by statistics courses had violated UC's own policy rules.

But he basically said in the email that he believed the plan was to just move ahead, as if BOARS has the right, and see if it's challenged. So the 2020 admissions change was amplifying earlier policy violating UC's own rules. That's why my extensive public comment on the recent CMF urged that it not highlight the 2020 UC policy due to its problematic status. That advice was not taken. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Fong, Chair Muratsuchi, and Committee Members. My name is Melissa Bardo on behalf of the Education Trust-West, a research and advocacy organization committed to dismantling the racial and economic barriers embedded in California's education system.

We are very concerned about the impact of this policy reversal on our state's most marginalized students, particularly those underrepresented in higher education. Assembly Member Quirk-Silva rightly raised concern about how this change would disproportionately impact low income students who already have less access to these higher level courses.

But I'd like to build on this concern to share another perspective that I think is missing from this conversation. In 2023, Ed Trust and Just Equations partnered to explain explore differences in patterns of math course enrollment for high school students based on high school student data from a 2009 longitudinal study.

Similar to other recent research findings, their findings show that high achieving black and Latino students and students from low income backgrounds who take and pass algebra one in the 8th grade still end up taking advanced math courses in high school at lower rates than their peers.

This growing body of research demonstrates that racial and economic barriers exist for not only access to advanced math courses, but also participation in advanced math courses, even among high achieving, low income students and students of color. We share the UC, the CSUs, and BOARS goal of increasing the number of students taking advanced math.

But as it has been remarked upon today, it has to be done with an intersegmental and coordinated approach. It's very concerning that a decision this consequential for our state's most marginalized students was made by an entity that has no public engagement or accountability. Students should not pay the price for our siloed and disconnected systems.

We urge state decision makers to focus our collective efforts on, one, enhancing access to advanced math, but two, also improving the experiences of students in these courses to ensure that ensure their success, rather than creating additional barriers that will hinder access to the UC for our most vulnerable students. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, Chair and Members. Anna Mathews on behalf of the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges. I just wanted to raise the fact that this issue, this decision also impacts community college students who are trying to transfer to CSUs and UC's especially.

There's been a huge emphasis in the Legislature within the last few years about the lack of, like, not enough community colleges, students transferring to the CSUs and UC's, and that burden, responsibility is always placed on the California Community Colleges.

But the reality is, if we don't have adequate cooperation and collaboration with our four year partners, it's not possible to make this happen. On this end, we're always told that we need to accommodate and shift our curriculum, and really, it puts our students the most at a disadvantage than anybody else.

But really, things need to be a two way street. This is not the only issue where we have seen this siloing of the three different systems and the inability to create a streamlined path forward for our students. So I would really hope that we can move forward in working on this and improving this upcoming year. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Seeing no further public comment. Thank you so much to all our members of the public for providing public comment today and for your testimony. And we also have the written record as well. So thank you. At this time, we'll move on to closing remarks. Chair Muratsuchi, would you like to make any closing remarks, please?

Thank you. I really appreciate all the panelists that presented today. I think there are some clear opinions stated about the need for more collaboration, more intersegmental collaboration, more data to support these decisions, especially to show the disparate impact. At the same time, I do want to acknowledge, you know, the importance of making sure that we are meeting necessary standards of academic rigor and that we're not just, you know, establishing courses just for the sake of graduating students.

And so I think it's, the balancing act that's required with so many competing public interests involved that further underscores the importance of having more collaborative decision making and more data driven decision making to make sure that we are clear on what we're working towards. So I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chair, on pursuing some of the ideas that were raised during this hearing. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Chair Muratsuchi, for your leadership, for your insights, and for your robust comments here today and questioning. And thank you to all the, everyone for the thoughtful conversation, recommendations. To my colleagues, all the panelists, for speaking with clarity and conviction on this very, very important topic.

And thank you to our guests that were online as well. We've heard a lot about coordination and the coordinating efforts and transparency and data, and I just also want to put out there that, as a legislative body, we've also pushed hard on a coordinating body as well. I've had legislation around this as well.

I know my colleagues over the years have had as well. And so I look forward to working with the Senate and the governor's office as we continue conversations around a coordinated body in the education space. And hearing the robust discussion here today, it's apparent to me that our University of California can be a better collaborative partner in working with our K-12 and CSU systems. And the removal of data science and statistics of advanced math courses.

We know that we've heard a lot of comments around this here today, and regardless of the semantics, the removal of the math courses constitutes a change in the content of the conditions of enrollment, which is, in my opinion, subject to the approval of the UC Regents.

The decision was made because UC BOARS had concerns regarding the preparation of students, regarding academic rigor of these courses for the UC. And if indeed UC BOARS had concerns with how the conditions for enrollment were being implemented, the concerns should have been discussed with the UC Office of the President, which is also in charge of implementing conditions for admission.

I'm also concerned by the precedent that these actions have set. We've heard many comments around this from all stakeholders here today, and in my opinion, the UC did not follow its own policies for content changes to emissions, and in doing so, the UC has allowed the opinions of the few to dictate the futures of so many of our students.

And so these conversations around this is deeply concerning around the timing and the manner of the UC BOARS decision. Appreciate all the comments from our folks from the UC system as well. And we know that decisions in the past have been made collaborative with K-12 long after the framework was implemented and curriculum was published.

But the precedence of this decision has impacted the lives of so many folks. And in hearing from our colleague at Kern County and really looking at the counseling, doing a ground level appeal, just really making sure that everyone's on the same page. We know that it sounds like we should look at additional timing around these efforts.

And to quote the previous chair of the BOARS Committee during a prior UC Regents meeting, any substantive change to admission requirements would require collaboration, alignment, and shared goals from kindergarten to post-secondary levels. To this end, UC could have been a better collaborative partner with the K-12 and broader education community.

We know that there's a lot of concerns around these issues, and while I'm sure that the decision to remove data science was done with the best intentions, the downward impact of such a decision has caused confusion for our UC admissions process and K-12 districts that we've heard from our panelists and from our students.

Ensuring students have a pathway to the UC and CSU is imperative, and therefore, I'll be following this situation very closely in the months to come. And I truly believe that conversation here today has been important to highlight and to spotlight the issues. And I really appreciate the comments from everybody here today.

But given the conversation here today, I believe a delay in implementation, as you heard from my colleagues as well, should be considered by all parties until the concerns have been addressed. Any proposed solutions should provide and preserve equitable access to our UC system.

And I really appreciate my colleagues for providing their comments here today. To Chair Muratsuchi, to Assembly Member Quirk-Silva, Assembly Member Hoover, and to all our participants who attended the hearing today and really appreciate the collaboration between our Assembly Higher Education staff and our Assembly Education Committee staff as well in organizing today's hearing. With that, today's meeting is adjourned. Thank you.