Assembly Standing Committee on Education

Alright. Good afternoon. I am calling this information hearing of the Assembly Education Committee to order. I'd like to welcome committee members and the members of the public to today's hearing. We're gathered today here to learn about the state of math education in California for students across the TK through 12 landscape.

We'll hear testimony about the current state of students' academic achievements in math, recent challenges and investments the state has made in math education. And potential strategies to help improve math outcomes in the future.

As a research scientist, I know how critical it is for our students to have strong foundations in math. And we'll hear today mathematics content is cumulative in nature, which makes students' first experiences with math all more important.

I also wanna acknowledge that in our hearing today, we will hear some sobering data about the status of math achievement and the factors that have gotten us to this place. However, we'll also hear about the steps as a state we can take to help address these shortcomings, and I'm excited to elevate those ideas today and work towards a solution.

I wanna emphasize that we can only effectively build those solutions when we take an honest and candid approach to identifying root causes. We rely on data driven solutions free from bias, and we ensure sustainable and accessible resources for our practitioners in the field.

We need to employ these solutions collaboratively with feedback from the practitioners, pragmatically ensuring that resources meet the expectations of the vision, and effectively, employing accountability and transparency processes along the way.

We are grateful to our panelists for taking the time to share their perspectives and recommendations with us today. Throughout this hearing, we will hear about the vision of the new framework, curriculum selection processes, and plans to provide math coaches.

All of this is critical. Hopefully, we will also hear about developing. How we can develop a better understanding of timelines and availability to help us all manage our expectations. We really have no time to waste. Our students don't get a second shot at second grade, and our communities are asking what will it take to make meaningful progress now, not five years from now.

With that, at the end of the hearing, we will take public comment in person, and public comment will be limited to one minute per person. Thank you. With that opening statement, we will now move on to our first panel. I'd like to introduce Doctor Iwunze Ugo, Research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California. I hope I got that close.

And Melissa Valenzuela-Stookey, Director of P16 Research at Ed Trust West. Doctor Ugo, you may proceed when ready. Oh, by the way, we will have slides that are both presenters will have slides. Our screen is quite small, though.

So the slides accompanying their presentations are available on our Assembly website, the Assembly Education website under informational hearings. So you can pull those up yourselves. Some of the data points are small. It'll probably be hard to see from the audience in the room. You may proceed when ready.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Iwunze Ugo. I'm a researcher at the Public Policy Institute of California, an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit research institute dedicated to informing and improving public policy in California. Thank you for inviting me to to provide testimony today.

Just over a decade ago, California overhauled the state's education system with a new funding

You may need to pull the microphone closer to you.

Just over a decade ago.

You can actually pull it and move it towards you if you need to. The whole thing.

Oh, the whole thing. There you go.

Just over a decade ago, California overhauled the state's education system with a new funding formula, state tests, and more. Funding has nearly doubled since 2013, and the Local Control Funding Formula or LCFF has allocated a larger share of those revenues to districts with more high need students, specifically low income students, English learners, and foster youth.

The state also saw student achievement improve initially, though. But as I'll discuss today, the story has been complicated. This water balance assessments, often called the SBAC tests, are given to students in grades 3 through 8 and 11 on English, Language, Arts and Math. The tests were first administered in the spring of 2015. And over the first years of the new tests, student proficiency rates steadily improved with gains both overall and for high needs students.

The shares of students meeting state standards rose each year going from 34% in 2015 to 40% in 2019. Then the pandemic interrupted that progress. The state tests were canceled outright in 2020 and only administered to 1 in 4 students in 2021. It wasn't until 2022 that we could see how students had fared since the pandemic, and the results were sobering.

Math proficiency rates had fallen seven percentage points with just 33% of students meeting state standards, erasing all of the progress made since the tests were introduced.

Since then, California has made progress, albeit slowly. Proficiency rates still increased by two percentage points in 2023 and one percentage point each in the two years after that. Scores are still below where they were just before the pandemic, and broader concerns with student performance remain. Less than half of students meet standards, and there are persistent achievement gaps across student groups. California has long trailed the national average in math.

But over the last two decades, the state made substantial progress. And while scores everywhere fell during the pandemic, California's decline was smaller than the nation overall and other large states, further narrowing the gap.

Despite that progress, Math remains a particular challenge. Students often struggle more with Math than English, and the subject is a gateway to high demand fields like Science and Engineering. One reason Math can be particularly challenging is that its content is cumulative.

Students move from arithmetic into increasingly complex material like Algebra and Geometry, with each step building on what came before. A student who struggles to understand polygons, shapes, for example, doesn't leave that difficulty behind as they move from one year to the next. The challenges compound when it's time to learn about angles and further still when advancing to sines and cosines. And this is evident in the pattern of test scores as well. Proficiency rates generally fall as students move through higher grades.

This has been the case in nearly every year of the state tests on. And on the national exams as well. Another consistent disparity emerges when we look across the distribution of test scores. Although math performance improved generally before the pandemic, high performing students made larger gains than lower performing students, widening the gap between them.

The pandemic exacerbated these differences with lower performing students in experiencing more severe setbacks. Those scores have recovered since then. That recovery has been slow and uneven. And in some of the higher grades, gains among lower performing students have been smaller, widening those gaps even further.

Lower performing students aren't necessarily disadvantaged students, but when we look at outcomes across student groups, we see many of the same disparities.

About two thirds of Asian students are proficient in Math and about half of white students are compared with just 1 in 4 Latino students and 1 in 5 black students. Boys also perform slightly better than girls in Math, the reverse of the gender gap we see in English.

We see similarly large differences by income. 26% of low income students are proficient in math compared with 58% of students from moderate to high income families. And those differences by income persist within racial and ethnic groups.

Low income students proficiency rates are about 18 to 28 percentage points lower with larger gaps for among White and Asian students. California has been working to address these disparities. The LCFF allocates about $15,000,000,000 to increasing or improving services for high need students, roughly 20% of funding under the formula.

And research from before the pandemic found that the added funding boosted achievement for targeted students. Of course, test scores are only one measure of how students and schools are doing. We see similar disparities on the English portion of the SBAC test and on the California science test and even beyond testing into other outcomes like graduation rates and chronic absenteeism.

The disparity in math, however, presents a particular challenge because gaps can compound as students move into more advanced material, and math is foundational to a growing range of high demand college majors and career pathways.

As California's economy continues to change with advanced technologies reshaping the skills required to do many kinds of work, closing these gaps will be increasingly important to making these opportunities available to all of the state students. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Patel and members of the Assembly Education Committee. My name is Melissa Valenzuela-Stookey and I have the privilege of serving as the Director of P16 Research at Ed Trust West. If you're not already familiar with us, Ed Trust West is a research and advocacy organization.

We're committed to dismantling the racial and economic barriers embedded in California's education system. I really appreciate the opportunity to provide a deeper dive into some of the data that Iwunze has grounded us in. Double clicking a little bit on the disparities our systems produce and perpetuate when it comes to math learning.

In the hopes that this kind of information can help us understand the gaps so that we can collaborate effectively to eradicate them. Right off the bat, I wanna ground us in parental beliefs and students' own aspirations since this is data we too infrequently see. National Survey data show that across racial groups, parents believe math is very important in preparing students for the real world.

93% of parents agree that when students succeed in math class, they're more likely to succeed later in life. Most students also agree. 3 in 5 high school students believe it's important for all students to learn math, and 7 in 10 have at some point consider themselves a math person, quote, unquote.

Although, unfortunately, that identity is too frequently eroded as they move through our systems. So knowing the majority of parents and students recognize the value of math education, let's dig into the data on opportunities and outcomes. We'll start with outcomes and work our way back from there.

When we disaggregate test data by student group, we see that averages can mask dramatic differences in student outcomes in standardized tests in Math, and these gaps have persisted over time.

For example, only 20% of black students were supported to meet or exceed grade level standards in math in 2025. That's less than half the share of white students and less than a third the share of Asian students who are supported to do so. Native American students end up at 23% testing proficient, and Latino students who make up more than half of our TK 12 learners, they're only slightly better with 26% meeting or exceeding math standards.

And the rates at which students who are English learners and students with disabilities are supported to reach proficiency are even lower, as you can see on this chart. Now, when we look across grade levels, as I mentioned, we do see this decline as math learning compounds over time and students who have been provided with shaky foundations are the most likely to fall behind and it's the hardest for them to be supported to catch up.

What we did on this slide is just broke that down by student group as well. So we made it evident that some groups are facing sharper declines than other groups. Once again, this decline is especially large for Latino students, English learners, students from low income households, and students with disabilities.

Now, our own accountability system reflect these math gaps. The California School Dashboard uses color coded performance levels based on both current results and year to year progress. Red and orange levels indicate the greatest need for improvement and trigger differentiated assistance for LEAs through the state system of support.

Incidentally, new CSD data and dashboard data is actually coming out this week, so we will see if there's been any movement. But as of 2025, 3 in 4 districts had at least one student group. Most often, again, students who are low income, Latino, English learners, or who have disabilities rated red or orange in math.

We can think of this statistic as a flashing warning light in our system. It indicates that most districts have work to do to address widespread and persistent math outcome gaps.

The outcome gaps we talked about so far stem from opportunity gaps, including but not limited to differences in access to fully prepared teachers. A robust body of research shows that students experience the largest gains when they're taught by fully prepared teachers. Yet, analysis of statewide teacher assignment data shows that black students, low income students, and English learner students have limited access to these professionals.

Across California, only 77% of math classes are taught by teachers who are fully credentialed to teach the subjects, students, and grade levels to which they're assigned.

In schools with a high concentration of low income students, only 75% of math classes are taught by fully prepared teachers, compared to 85% in schools with a low concentration of low income students. Fortunately, data doesn't just help us shine a light on problems and gaps, it also helps point us towards solutions that work.

High quality professional learning and coaching is among the most effective ways to strengthen instruction and improve student outcomes. But right now, California teachers aren't getting enough of it. A survey of more than 200 math teachers across the state showed that teachers feel they receive uneven and insufficient support at present.

Just like the pattern we saw with test scores, this gap also widens as students move through their educational trajectory. Nearly two thirds of elementary teachers found their professional learning useful, but only 42% of middle and high school teachers said the same. That being said, coaching, one of our strongest tools, currently reaches too few teachers.

Only 1 in 4 respondents of to this survey reported receiving helpful individual coaching from their district. That leaves a huge opportunity for growth. Gaps in preparation are also part of the problem. An analysis by the National Center for Teacher Quality found that only 6% of elementary programs in California provide adequate time in math content and pedagogy, placing tremendous weight on in service learning.

Taken together, these data suggest the importance of both strengthening teacher preparation explicitly focused on math instruction and investing in proven strategies for supporting teachers who are already in the classroom, like expanding access to coaches.

Thank you so much for the opportunity to share our analyses of math outcomes in California, particularly highlighting where the opportunity gaps are. It's our hope that this information, alongside the policy solutions proposed in our math policy agenda, can help inform action to close these gaps.

Thank you very much to the both of you for your testimony today. We have been joined by, colleague Assemblymember Bonta. Would you like to make an opening statement? Do you have any questions? Okay.

So first question I have, Doctor Ugo, your comments about our recovery from the pandemic as well as the widening achievement gap were very sobering. But consistent with what we're hearing from the ground, it's nice to see it presented as actual data instead of just anecdotally. I am curious if these trends are specific to California, or do we see them nationwide? Is there something particular about the trend for California?

I think it's a little bit of both. California, of course, has its particular experience, but it's in a broader national trend. We saw the effects of the pandemic being very widespread with school closures, distance learning, and a host of disruptions even beyond education that really transformed the experience for California students and around the nation.

Looking at the national scores from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, which allows us to compare trends, over time across states, we see, we saw that California had long lagged the nation, going back to /2003 near, like the bottom third of states.

Over the last few decades, though, the state has made substantial progress, catching up to both the national average and other large states like New York, Texas, and Florida. However, and then with the pandemic, when that hits, fortunately for California, I guess you could say, you know, declines were, you know, experienced across the board but California's declines were a bit smaller, which allowed the state to catch up even further to where it now is at about the state, the national average.

Thank you for that. When we look at., in your opening statements, you reflected on large gains in funding through the LCFF, the Local Control Funding Formula, and yet we're not seeing an ability to, you know, substantially bridge that gap. What what do you think is causing that? Where are our sticky points?

Yeah. There's a challenge. One, funding has increased substantially since the Local Control Funding Formula was passed in 2013. That's a combination of rising state revenues. We had the, you know, tax extensions from Proposition 30 in 2012, and then just the general improvement from the recovery from the great recession.

So there has been an increase in state spending on education. But of course, education is a very expensive proposition, right? with staffing costs and all that it takes to educate the state students. So within, you know, rising funding rates, there's also been these persistent challenges.

And then we did see some evidence of the funding allocations in the LCFF improving the outcomes, both generally, but then specifically for the high end students targeted through. With additional funding through the supplemental grants and the concentration grants.

And however, as is the story coloring a lot of this, the pandemic really put the brakes on a lot of that progress. Right? We had seen, like I mentioned, you know, growth for high needs students in particular, you know, from 2015 up to 2019. And then real specific setbacks for high need students after the pandemic really reversing a lot of that progress.

So what that tells us is that there is some evidence that the state's approach could work. This idea of targeting funding to hiring students and obligating districts to increase or improve services for hiring students in order to improve their outcomes.

And unfortunately, with the setback of the pandemic, a lot of that work remains, and that's to say nothing of these long standing gaps that we've seen between low income students, between Black and Latino students over time.

Do you think if that funding for coaching programs or teacher training was more sustainable or increased that would help bridge that gap?

Perhaps. That is a challenge with funding and especially the way California's funding system is is structured. We do see some volatility with just the way in which California's revenue picture is heavily reliant on the income tax, for example, which is, which swings more compared to something more stable like the property tax that is used more in other states. So we do see some baseline volatility in the amount of resources available, for education in California.

Although things like, Proposition 98, and the sort of base funding for education does help with stability there. And then, and on the part of districts, when it comes to, you know, funding the programs that are meant to improve services for students, and we've seen some successful programs, things like teacher coaching, some of the responses to the pandemic with the master grants, for example. Those have been helpful, but there's an added challenge with stability.

You know, we saw those COVID funds expire and you know, districts having implemented these very successful programs now have to scramble to find out how to sustain them.

So there is, again, there's evidence that things can work, but finding a way to do it sustainably, consistently over time has been a challenge in and of itself.

Thank you for that. Miss Valenzuela, so you said Stookey?

Yep.

Stookey. Your data suggests that part of the problem is that students don't always have access to fully credentialed, properly placed teachers.

What types of help is useful for students in these situations? When they're in a classroom, what can families do? What can a student do when they're not feeling like they're getting adequately instructed?

Yeah. That's a great question. Thank you. Thank you for your question, Chair Patel. I think there's a few things that research points us towards that can be helpful to mitigate the fact that we don't have an equitable distribution of fully qualified or fully prepared teachers.

Many of those teachers are actually early careers, so they're working towards getting their credentials, which kind of reinforces the importance of something like math coaches to provide, you know, a little bit more of a leg up in terms of pedagogy and instructional practices that go alongside high quality instructional materials to help improve student outcomes.

Other things that we have seen in the research have an outsized impact are things like high dosage tutoring. So relationship trust based one on one or small group kind of interventions that allow students to to build on their skills, to build their confidence in math, have a huge effect.

There are also, you know, interventions on things like chronic absenteeism that can really help move the needle on downstream things like both math and literacy learning.

So I think those are, those are some of the the kind of main inputs that are helpful in a situation where at equilibrium, we're dealing with really high rates of turnover that kind of feed that lack of highly qualified teachers in these districts.

Certainly math as such a foundational course of study where you're building one day upon the other when you have chronic absenteeism, that could really be debilitating for a student's ability to learn and grasp concepts and then build upon them week after week after week, especially when things move pretty fast in some math classes. Specifically, to go out on a limb a little bit here, certainly coaches and more one on one intensive tutoring is great.

What do you think the role of AI is in this space?

Oh, it's such a, such an of the moment question. I appreciate it.

I had to go there. Yeah.

Of course. And there's been some really interesting research coming out just in the last couple weeks that suggests some of it from Stanford, which I'd be happy to share after the fact, but it shows two sides of the same coin. So on the one hand, there is potential for digital tutoring that has AI components to have a positive impact for students. That being said, it seems like usage is a real barrier.

So in kind of randomized control trials with these products, often kids are not logging on or using them for the amount of time that it would be necessary to move the needle.

And they tend to be most useful when they're paired with, you know, a support from a teacher or tutor who is kind of helping be an accountability buddy and to scaffold the learning that the AI is providing. And then there's also been recent evidence that shows that some of the AI products embedded in things like Khan Academy have shown no change on student outcomes. So I think it depends both on the product and how it's applied.

Yeah. I know I've seen kids, you know, it's their body language or their facial expression that might hint to a tutor or a teacher that there's actually confusion going on where an AI may not be able to pick up that that level of confusion. And then specifically, last question, and then I'll, and I'll turn it over to my colleague.

Around the conversation of the, of not fully credentialed educators tending to be in districts that are lower income or rural where we struggle for recruitment and retention of teachers. Those school districts tend to also be the ones that are getting more under LCFF.

What are we not getting right to make sure that we have highly qualified educators ready to go when the classroom doors open for these students who frankly need it the most? Yeah. What can we do better?

So I think there's a, there's a couple things. I think coupling increased funding with an understanding of the differential costs that come with student needs, I think, is really critical. So understanding, you know, not just that these districts are getting more, but what would adequate or full funding look like in these districts.

We may be funding them more per pupil and still falling far short of what estimates would suggest we should be funding, which then leads districts to kind of make really difficult choices between things like paying teachers competitive wages and do, you know, funding these additional programs, and interventions that are also really high impact.

So I think that kind of having to make those trade offs is part of the issue. I think it's also incredibly important to pair that type of funding and financial support with an accountability system that meaningfully both supports and puts responsibility on our schools and districts for moving the needle tied to goals that they share and that can kind of streamline and align those efforts.

So it's a a complex question with multifaceted, I think, solutions to address it.

Certainly, we're only, we're only getting started here. So, Assemblymember Bonta.

Thank you. I wanted to just dive in a little bit around the issue of both highly credentialed and professional learning opportunities within the context of math and reference a study. You all probably are very familiar with the MET project of 2013 where 3,000 teachers were evaluated in different subject matters and subject matter areas and observed. And we have tens of thousands of hours of teacher observation video captured.

One of the things that my understanding from that study that came out pretty clearly was that the subject matter expertise or not basic knowledge of particularly for math was very significant a significant factor in whether or not they would perform better in terms of their teacher effectiveness.

Do you have a sense of whether we should be looking differently around the idea of professional learning and credentialing, particularly for math, given the fact that it seems that knowledge, math knowledge is pretty critical. That may not happen through credentialing programs and may not happen through exclusively or may not happen through an ongoing professional learning.

Yeah. Sure. I'll be happy to jump in. Thank you, Assemblymember Bonta, for the question. So I think that as you mentioned, there's a problem on the kind of preparation side where we need to, I think, take a serious look at the amount of time and the quality of kind of instruction and pedagogy and best practices that candidates are getting when they're in their teacher prep programs.

But I think to your point, what this also suggests is that teachers who are already in the classroom and already working with students are at a bit of a disadvantage because they've been able to get their credential without necessarily kind of strengthening their own math skills.

And there is pretty significant research that suggests that leads to math anxiety on the part of teachers as well who know that, you know, they want to be providing the best possible education for their students, and they might recognize those gaps in their own preparation. I think coaches and high quality professional learning are two of the most effective interventions to kind of get at that gap.

And high quality coaching can take a novice teacher to kind of functioning in many ways like a veteran teacher if it is sustained and it's provided by a coach who's embedded in the school, who has relationships with the administrative staff, and who kind of works for longer than a year. It's a really important piece of the puzzle.

And that has significantly shown to improve student outcomes.

Most of the research is in grades 3, 4, and 5. But that type of coaching I think is one of the kind of key levers to get at the question that you're asking. And I think right now we have pockets of progress, but the investments that the state has made so far in things like coaching and high quality professional learning don't allow for the coverage that we need to really get at these gaps at scale. I hope that begins to answer question.

Yeah. I think it. In part, I think that we are should be careful not to kind of conflate or confound the idea of coaching, helping to make sure that basic kind of substance of knowledge or math skills are being developed. You know, those are, you know, you're not necessarily addressing the underlying challenge if

Oh, no. Yeah.

So I coaching.

Thank you. Yeah.

I think it's kind of, each is necessary but not sufficient on its own. To kind of solve the problem that we have. That's an excellent point.

Are you aware of any programs that are more focused particularly math rounds the math skill development.

Programs within California, educator preparation programs? I'd have to go back and look at the, NCTQ report, but I'd be happy to follow-up with you afterwards.

The other area that's always kind of interesting to me is everybody knows particularly for literacy numeracy. You know, we go through a period of time where we are reading to learn and then or what is it? Learning to read and then at some point, 3rd, 4th grade, read to learn. So that we aren't kind of again, aggregating the kind of distinction at different levels given that math concepts increase exponentially as you move on.

Should we be thinking differently about the kind of differentiating coaching, professional learning, based on grade levels?

Yeah. I would say so.

Just for the, I think, straightforward fact that the content of math and, you know, sort of what kinds of broader logical skills, I suppose, change over time. Right? You have this progression from, you know, simple arithmetic to more complex relationships all the way up up through algebra and geometry.

And as, you know, students are moving through that, conceptual structure, they need different kinds of supports, especially as you're talking about, trying to make up for gaps, for example, for students that don't have as strong a foundation. So I do think that as you describe the kind of what a student needs in terms of the education they get from their teacher, there does need to be some customization, as you go through the different grades.

And you see that too with the basic structure, where you, you know, in the elementary grades, a lot of teaching is a full day. It's the same teacher all day, and then you start to specialize in middle school and high school. And, I think that's useful because as you get to those highest concepts, it is, you know, much more complex, and you need that specialized training on the part of like, a math teacher as opposed to just, you know, your 3rd grade teacher.

But then I think in. The important part or the thing that the important thing that highlights is that, you know, we talked about how math is, you know, foundational in a way, where the things you learn in second, third, fourth grade matter for how well you understand your content in seventh, eighth, and eighth grade in high school.

So as we talk about what happens in those early grades and, you know, this is the kind of general preparation that goes into a multiple subject credential or, you know, the training that someone I think, thought put towards those students having a robust training in a math education to be able to provide that to all students that they can have that foundation that they'll take with them into those higher level courses that they go into higher grades.

And the presentation here, I think, doesn't necessarily differentiate or get into the depth of kind of different, you know, early elementary, elementary, middle, high school in terms of, the kind of inequity that in terms of learning games, games that exist. Is that information that you have available to you?

Well, yeah. One thing that we looked at in our, in preparation for my testimony today was how the variation across both the distribution of test scores and then also across grades. Right? So one thing that we do see, and this relates to this, you know, the way that math is cumulative, Students in higher grades, so, you know, comparing 8th and 11nth graders to 3rd and 4th graders, just in general, those proficiency rates on the math test are lower, and that's...

You know, this added. This kind of accumulative effect where students that, you know, if you don't get that pen, that foundation in the early grades, it compounds, and you see that dispersion, as you go to the higher grades. And then another thing sort of within grades and then, of course, over time is looking at the distribution of test scores.

Right? So when you, look at, when you compare high performing students, for example, to low performing students, so this is looking at like, the tenth percentile versus the ninetieth percentile. Over time, and this is, you know, going back before the pandemic, before even the SBEC test, so, you know, back to 2010 or so on the previous California state standards test, the CSTs.

we had seen this, you know, concerning trend of a growing sort of dispersion between high and low performing students where, you know, students in the tenth, twentieth, thirtieth percentile, these are sort of lower than average to or students with scores that are lower than average.

That sort of cohort of students were seeing their scores stagnating or even declining over time, whereas students in the higher part of the distribution, you know, the ninth percentile and above, for example, had their scores improving over time. Right? So that's an added concern. Right?

Of course, we often talk about the statewide average and and proficiency rates, and, you know, those concerns are, or those trends are concerning as well. But, you know, within the sort of broad population of California students, there's this concerning trend of a spread where the students that are doing worse than average are falling further behind over time.

And then do, had, do you have any analysis that links early literacy to early numeracy in that there are perhaps higher levels of numeracy and math skills when there are school districts or individual students that perform better in early literacy?

I think you made a point earlier about it's it's a little cliche, but I think it's true. That as you're younger, you know, first you learn to read and then you read to learn. And we do see that connection between your sort of reading performance and your math performance early on. You know, there are, there's a link there. Right?

You need to understand. You need to be able to read the word problem to get it right, for example. And I think one thing that this also points out, especially as we're thinking of early numeracy, is having the systems kind of be aware of that context.

Right? It's not enough to just have the word problem be about popcorn or something. Right? There needs to be attention to. It sometimes there's the sort of cultural awareness of the content of the word problems, where what it takes to understand the question isn't just knowing how to move the numbers around.

It's knowing what this thing is about. And, you know, we see this with English learners, for example, and other kinds of math testing for younger students.

There's the math of it, I suppose, but then also how you present the content and that being much more sensitive to the variation across students in terms of, what kind of background they're bringing to that experience.

This time, I'd like to welcome Assemblymember Hoover, our vice Chair of our committee. Do you have any opening statements or questions to ask?

No questions at this time, but I just appreciate the opportunity to have this discussion. I think it's really critical, and thank you both for being here to open it up.

Thank you. Well, then, of course, we will have many follow-up conversations after this hearing, I'm sure. But at this time, that concludes panel one. We've now got a pretty good understanding at a high level of the state of affairs of math, and we'll now move into panel two. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Panel two will cover recent challenges and investments in math education. With us today to discuss this landscape, we have Linda Darling Hammond, founding president and current chief knowledge officer of the Learning Policy Institute. We also have Hilda Wright, president of the California Mathematics Council. Miss Darling Hammond, you may proceed when ready.

Alright. Thank you very much. I'm so happy we're talking about math. Hooray. Yes.

And I'm gonna talk about sort of the issue of how we bring together the things we've done in math to a coherent policy and set of practices that could really move the needle. You've already heard about the challenges in the math achievement statistics over recent years. I will say that over the last three years since we adopted the math framework, we have begun to turn around the lows of the pandemic. So we've had gains on our state test the last three years.

And in the most recent NAEP test, we had a a gain larger than the average national gain on fourth grade.

So we're making some headway, but we have a long way to go. You've already heard about that. And clearly, there are many things that factor in. I'm gonna talk about three areas. The first of them is the ability to give every student qualified and well prepared teachers.

The staffing issues that we have in California, it's a strong relationship between teachers preparation and student achievement. In fact, in one California study, the largest impact on... Negative impact on achievement was having a large share of underqualified teachers, teachers who don't have a full credential. That constitutes about 40% of new math authorizations each year. So we're not staffing our class.

These means people are hired. 40% of the people who were hired with authorizations did not have either any preparation or have not completed their preparation. This is also inequitable, so some of the inequalities are closely tied to the inequitable distribution of teachers. In our highest needs schools, about one in four math teachers are underprepared. So it's a very high proportion.

In addition to the disparities in knowledge and skill that are associated with the credential, we also know that elementary teachers are often very uncomfortable with math even if they're certified as an elementary teacher. And we have studies of candidates in California completing math... Completing their multiple subject programs showing that in the math area, interns are much... Feel much less prepared than student teachers or residents. Residents feel the best prepared in in every respect, both elementary and secondary.

They enter teaching at higher rates. They teach higher needs students. They stay in teaching at higher rates, and we have recent evidence that they are also getting significantly higher math achievement gains from their students. So we can begin to see what are the components of preparation that may make a difference. LPI actually has a study right now of some excellent mathematics teacher education programs in California, which produce graduates who feel well prepared for math teaching.

And representative Vonta, I will find the names of those because you asked about that earlier. I think the four programs we're studying are CSU Fullerton, San Luis Obispo, Cal Poly, UCLA, and UC Irvine. So they include elementary and secondary. The goal there is to figure out what are they doing, and then how could we translate that into accreditation standards and expectations for teachers preparation in math just as we've recently done in literacy for preservice programs.

In addition, we're looking at what are the factors of effective teaching in classrooms.

And I won't say much about the details of that at this point, but those are also practices that need to be folded in to coaching and preservice. Fortunately, we've made a dent both through the teacher residency programs and the Golden State teacher grants. Over the last three years, we've had 30 more fully prepared teachers than we had had in the years previous. So we are making progress, but those are one time funding.

And we just saw that in the last legislative cycle, the Golden State teacher grant is now reduced to only preparing special education teachers.

It could be increased again to in... Include others, but we really need a way to bring people into the profession. And the people who are prepared stay longer, so it reduces the churn and reduces the demand. The second area, of course, we have to worry about is the quality of the curriculum and the instructional materials. We do have a new curriculum framework adopted in 2023, and I bet my colleague is gonna speak to that because she's one of the experts in math.

So I won't say much other than that it's been very well received in the math community, and it includes what we learned from studying high achieving countries in math that are equitable in their outcomes. Those countries do things differently than they're generally done in The United States. That includes that they teach fewer concepts each year more deeply. The students collaboratively produce and discuss multiple strategies rather than just doing a set of practice problems using an algorithm without very deep understanding.

All of the students receive the same rich curriculum through at least tenth grade.

Data use and data science are infused across all the grades. And math is taught in an integrated fashion, showing the connections between concepts concepts and methods like algebra and geometry rather than treating them disconnected. So we have a lot of work to do to change what is the usual US practice, you know, into something that is much more conceptual and coherent for students. That's underway. We have invested in training coaches to help districts.

And in the appendix of my written remarks, you'll see all of the investments that we've made. But it took them two years to approve instructional materials. There's a list of 50 plus materials that districts then have to review themselves to make their adoptions. So we're just now beginning to get the, instructional materials adoptions. It takes a long time.

We appreciate the legislature having funded a study for us of what other states do that might allow us to revise this process so that we can get at... You know, make our approaches much more streamlined and helpful to the field. I wanna mention quickly that there are beyond what we did in the framework, which goes from t k to eighth grade. There are a number of problems with middle and high school math that are not touched by the framework.

And I outlined those in my written testimony on pages six and seven.

I won't go through all of it, but at the root of it is the fact that in The US, again, unlike other high achieving countries, we typically have algebra, geometry, algebra two, precalculus. Calculus, it's a five course sequence to get it completed by high school. By the end of high school, you have to start in eighth grade. We haven't revised the middle school curriculum such that it gives a seamless approach to that eighth grade on ramp. And so there's content missing that trips kids up.

And we also haven't really looked at that high school curriculum. There's a new report I wanna bring to your attention from the California Mathematics Alignment Project, which is a group of math experts from k twelve and higher education, which has proposed a a synthesizing and organizing the high school curriculum in ways that allow pursuit of stronger quantitative reasoning, greater depth and sophistication, and more more efficiency in the way that the content is presented. So I think that's another agenda.

Finally, there's the question of how we build local capacity. And, obviously, you know, locals need a strong curriculum, high quality professional development, time and opportunity for teacher collaboration, additional opportunities for student learning, the small group and one on one tutoring, summer learning, and so on, a full approach to

the

math problem that we're facing. We've gotten partway there. And I just wanna note what is done and undone in California to get to a holistic approach. We've adopted the new framework. We've adopted a list of recommended programs.

We've created a math network of professional development providers who are operating out of CCEE. We've invested about a $100,000,000 over the last six years to launch free training for math coaches as well as for administrators and teachers through the California math the mathematics professional learning partnership, which is a consortium of the math project and county offices. And this is a good move because what we're finding in reviews of the coaching literature is that coaching...

Because coaches are there, they're not going away, they're able to think about the program and work with the teachers directly rather than sit and get professional to get development, can accelerate student learning by four to six months on average. So it's a a useful thing to do.

But we're not buying the coaches. We're just buying the training right now. And the math community is working hard to make all of this cohere together. And to my right is one of the people who's doing much of that work. But we need to solve the teacher shortage that has to be on the list.

We have to address teacher preparation for teaching math. We need to ensure professional develop... Enough professional development and coaching to reach all teachers. And then we need to develop supports for high dosage tutoring and other interventions. So I think those are part of the agenda.

I reviewed in my testimony, and I won't do it now, the Alabama Mathematics Support Act, which is very coherent and also included the hiring of math experts in the State Department of Education to coordinate and collaborate all of the efforts that they were putting in place, as well as identifying a tier of schools that would get intensive supports of all the kinds needed that allow us to both see if...

What can happen when we put it all together and then build on that for the rest of the state's work. And I'll leave I'll leave my comments with a happy thought that I'm glad we're poised to get high quality math teaching for every California learning as we go forward.

We can't build that brighter future without high quality math instruction. Miss Wright.

Good afternoon, and thank you, Chair and members, for including the mathematics community in today's hearing. The California Mathematics Council or CMC is a statewide organization serving educators, leaders, students, families, and communities. With thousands of members, we are committed to improving mathematics learning, believe in the brilliance of every math learner, and advocate for equitable access to rigorous, engaging mathematics. Today, I wanna share the vision and the spirit of the 2023 mathematics framework, a framework that really centers students.

And I'm gonna focus specifically on chapters one and two.

So let me start with the three dimensions of systemic change, which are asset based approaches, active engagement, and cultural and personal relevance. So here's what we know. Students do not come in as blank slates. They bring lived experiences and funds of knowledge, wonderful experiences around mathematics from home, from being outdoors, and even from play. This means valuing what students know and the assets they bring rather than focusing on what they lack.

For multilingual learners, assets includes their languages, their experiences, and ways of thinking. This is the asset based approach, which is our first dimension. The second one, we learn... We know to learn math, students need to experience it. They need to explore, ask questions, and be curious.

The second dimension focuses on actively engaging students through investigation and connection. Meaningful investigations help students see themselves as doers of mathematics. Simply repeating steps can make math feel like a set of rules without meaningful connections. Through active engagement, students can internalize what they are learning and develop a deeper understanding. The third dimension is cultural and personal relevance.

We all have culture, home, community, and even school culture. Students need to see themselves in the mathematics and experience learning that is relevant to their lives. What matters to them, their families, and their communities? How can those things become a part of the foundation of mathematical learning? So you see these three dimensions, they help us think about the changes we need across our system.

So what would it look like if the framework was implemented across California classrooms? Well, first, teaching around big ideas. You would see students making connections across grade levels. They're exploring quantities, relationships, and patterns. Math becomes a connected set of ideas as students continue building on, not isolated skills.

Second, open and engaging tasks. In this classroom, you would see students thinking, persevering, exploring, collaborating, and investigating questions like, is this a better deal? They draw on their experiences, use different representations, and choose tools to make sense of the problem. There's lots of talking, lots of sharing, and lots of mathematical thinking. The third, teaching towards social justice.

You would see all students position as mathematicians, not just a few. You would also see students using mathematics to understand their world. What do the numbers tell us? What do they reveal? Students might notice there's only one swing for 60 students.

They could investigate, collect data, and write letters to the principal asking for more swings. Here, they are using mathematics to examine access to play and advocate for a fair opportunity. Fourth, inviting student questions and conjectures. You would hear students wondering and making predictions similar to a hypothesis in science. I wonder if adding two more swings can make a difference, or do we need five?

Students have room to ask questions, investigate their ideas, and revise their thinking. Fifth, reasoning and justification. You would see students checking whether answers make sense, and here's them explaining why. You might hear, that doesn't make sense. What if we try this?

Students might compare poachers and consider one another's reasoning. Sometimes something looks like an error to us, but when a student explains, we see thinking we hadn't noticed. And honestly, this is one of my favorite things to witness when I visit classrooms. And it's amazing because I always just... They're they're brilliant thinkers and brilliant thinking is something we didn't even see.

So those are known as the five components, of equitable, engaging, and mathematics teaching. And you can find both the three dimensions and the five components in chapters one and two of the framework. So think about your experience in mathematics. Does this sound like your math classroom? Because it doesn't sound like mine and my experience or my kids' experience.

So, really, this is a shift in mindset. It's about empowering students to think independently, to see themselves as mathematicians, and to prepare them for college, career, and civic life. So many educators, parents, and community support the framework, and they feel inspired. They feel motivated when they learn about its vision. But here's what we are hearing.

I need support. I need to see it in action. I need a thinking partner. I wanna try it, but I need feedback. How do I know if I'm doing this right?

Where do I find those kind of tasks? So you see the... That inspiration needs to be met with opportunities to practice, reflect, and grow. So to make this vision a reality, we need, and you've heard it several times already, sustained investment in professional learning, mathematics coaching, teacher preparation, and high quality instructional materials. And that's just to name a few.

So this is how the frameworks promise becomes students' everyday experience. We recognize there are different grants and initiatives around mathematics, and we thank you, truly, including MPLP, which Linda mentioned, which is the mathematics professional learning partnership with the math project and the county offices. And this is about building capacity of math leaders across California. But as Linda mentioned, it still doesn't guarantee we have coaches, and that's really a missing piece.

We can train as many leaders as we can across the state, but without coaches, what's the impact?

So we need sustained investment in mathematics coaching similar to literacy coaches. Finally, CMC has collaborated with Ed Trust West and Californians together to create a math policy agenda. We're excited to put that into your hands and ask for your support in making the framework's vision a reality across California. Thank you for your time. I'm happy to answer questions and would welcome opportunities to share more or even invite you to see this work in action.

Thank you.

Nothing like a good field trip to help see what Yes. What's actually going on at the ground level. I used to love doing that as a school board trustee as well. I have a few questions for, miss Darling Hammond, but I wanna turn it to my colleagues to see if they wanna open with any questions first, or should I just jump in? Yeah.

You know I'm not shy. Thank you for your presentation today highlighting the challenges that we're facing as well as outlining comprehensive strategies to help us move forward. I I know that improving math education is a is a passion of yours. It's actually a passion of mine as well as a former research scientist. And, I appreciate all the work that you've done, and I do, appreciate that the framework is being well received across districts, throughout the state of California, both in schools and in communities as well.

So I wanna highlight that because that's a that's a really great thing. I do wanna note that, we will be hearing more thoughts on future directions from our third panel as well. So I'll have questions there as well.

I'm curious that whether you think there are recent changes in the governance that we've done through AB 181 will help address some of the persistent sticky challenges we've been facing around being focused on math instruction, whether that's through coaches or efforts around high dose tutoring or whatever, just the vision and the focus on this. Will this governance restructuring help us?

Will the coherence help us? It could.

And, you know, it all depends on the implementation. But, you know, the intention of getting more coherence, I think, is the is the goal of the governance change. And I think we will begin to see, you know, both more integration between what the State Board does, what the department does, what the CCEE does. Obviously, it depends on how the department is structured and restructured.

But I will say that many states that have been making strong gains, both in literacy and in math, have done so by creating an office that they don't already have one in their department of education to attend to that content area with expertise.

I noted that in the Alabama law, they've had the largest gains in in math on NAEP. They specified that expertise in math experts would be in an office of math improvement in their department, and that was a a way to organize the work. And then to help, the, local districts have a way to get guidance and support on a regular basis.

So I think those kinds of things ought to be on the table as we're thinking about governance changes in in our department as we recruit a new commissioner and develop the possibilities. Right now, the department is not organized around curriculum expertise, for example, in various areas.

Yeah. I certainly see a lot of potential to do good good work through that governance restructuring. You mentioned specifically that LPI has ongoing work on effective teacher preparation programs as well as effective math teachers. Would you... Are you able to share any early findings from that work with us here today?

Particularly, are there any practices that help close some of those achievement gaps that we heard about in our first panel?

Yeah. We did two studies that are cited in the... In my reference list that are completed on effective practices. One looked at all the research and identified what the research shows, you know, reduces achievement gaps and supports achievement. The other was looking at 10 California teachers who are effective and then documenting what they do.

And that's really joyful reading if you want to mirror what you were just hearing. But the... In in general terms, one key thing is creating a classroom environment, of course, with positive relationships that promote engagement and motivation and so on. Kids in surveys about math often say they're disengaged in math. So it's both feeling safe in the classroom that, you know, I can be a math person, I can learn this, and then being engaged.

And then a sense of belonging, not just a social belonging, but also math belonging. Because we've had this sort of idea in The United States that you have the math gene or you don't have the math gene or you're a math person or you're not a math. And you'll hear people say this all the time. I'm not a math person. You know?

And somewhere along the way, they learned that math was not for them. So the sense that, yes, I can be a mathematician and the head of discourse that you heard described that reinforces that. The third thing is being supported in adopting a growth mindset. And there are particular tactics to do that, which means, for example, redoing your work and, you know, being able to resubmit, retaking your test, you know, getting additional instruction and seeing that you can become more competent working with your group, etcetera.

So there are ways to do that.

And when those are in place, the growth mindset produces much higher achievement levels as Carol Dweck's work shows. And then finally, elements of quality instruction. You just heard those from my colleague. You know, conceptual understanding the rich tasks, grappling with the challenging content in collaboration with other students, communication, math talks of various kinds, and then timely interventions. And, Doug, you...

We can't wait. We can't do rinse and repeat, like, fail the math course and then take it again if we really wanna make progress. I was recently talking to the superintendent in Compton. And many of you know that Compton was once a state... Was in state receivership.

It has skyrocketed in recent years. And they've got very rigorous approaches to what they're doing that's driving achievement forward in math as well as in literacy. Among those things is that every week, there's a little check-in at the end of the week to see where kids are on the core concepts. And as soon as a student doesn't have 75 or 80% mastery, they immediately get tutoring.

They've worked out it out with Dominguez Hills University, and they get folks who are training to become teachers and others who are trained to be tutors.

And they immediately get intervention and tutoring every week as needed to just be able to master the content. So it's just one example, but there are many of them. And if we put those ingredients together, you do see really significant gains.

Thank you for that. I can definitely imagine that working really well. Before you fall further and further behind, we catch you up right away.

That seems to be a good way to to

Yeah.

keep those alternative to tracking too. I mean, it's actually supporting, you know, progress for everyone.

I know there's a California initiative right now on secondary redesign. In that process of looking at secondary redesign, has there been any focus or attention specifically on math instruction and what we can do differently as we look at secondary redesign?

It hasn't been, like, a official or formal, part of it, but it is a part of the discussions that go on in schools, particularly as they're changing schedules and trying to figure out how to organize math. And one of the things we hear a lot about from successfully redesigned schools that have math gains is that, for one thing, you don't shorten the amount of time for math.

You know, some people adopt a block schedule and say, let's just do, one semester for each content area and then flip. Typically, for algebra, a full year is really much more beneficial. Many places that are making progress are doing a block plus a lab course.

I talked in the testimony about a study of a high school that did a spectacular job of eighth grade acceleration. This is... They're actually in New York. They were taking math one, the regents math one in eighth grade instead of ninth. But what they did was redesign the sixth and seventh grade curriculum, so it led to the eighth grade curriculum.

All the teachers worked together and collaborated. They had a full year of the course plus a lab course every other day that anybody could go to just to get their questions answered and keep up. And at the end of that year, get a 100% of the kids in a very diverse urban school passing the regents, you know, ninth grade test. So it's all of those pieces that we have to do.

And as we think about school redesign, we need to be thinking about how do we use our time and how do we use it most effectively to be sure that kids are getting all that they needed because we are so far behind in math.

Yeah. We are a low performing state in a low performing country in math, and we've had the pandemic effects that you heard about. Many, many kids are coming into middle and high school with gaps in their knowledge, And we have to acknowledge that and then build a math program, which can also use after school and summertime to really enable them to solidly understand and enjoy the math that they're taking.

And you talked about time in math. Are there any conversations in secondary redesign around whether we should stick to the the semester bell schedule or whether we would look at something like a trimester or quarter system, or are conversations around that still ongoing?

Yeah. I I There are

all kinds of There's all kinds

of systems that people invent. And I think quite often, the reason for the invention is to squeeze in more courses, more electives, or more opportunities for different courses, which can be one rationale. But we also need for kids to get a deep understanding of the of the material that they're taking, and I think that's especially important. There's some courses that might be just fine in a quarter or or a trimester or something.

And there are others that will disadvantage students because the goal is not just to get through it quickly.

The goal is... And all of the colleges say this. You get these statements from the university sector about understand it deeply, and then we can build on it. But if you come in with a flimsy understanding, even if you've passed some classes that you say, I know I didn't really understand the theory of limits or whatever it was, That's a a weak read on which to build a STEM career, for example.

Yeah. Certainly. Miss Wright, I have some questions for you as well. As I was looking through the prepared documents, Aye... I've noticed that we switched to having school as t k through 12.

There's not much mention of t k. We started kindergarten with the framework. Are we learning a lot of math as t k students, and should we bridge that that policy space for TK?

Thank you. So I have to start by saying, it's like, how do we define math? Sure. And that is a question that I think that we all need to think about. Because as mentioned several times now, there's this understanding that, like, I might not be a math person or that in our society, a lot of us don't have anxiety around mathematics.

And so it's even redefining what does math mean and what does it mean to be a mathematician. Right? So from infancy, we're mathematicians. Right? And so TK students experience a lot of mathematics.

It's just not my... It's just not a worksheet. And so I want us to think more broadly about math. And so with TK, so it it it comes... It shows up in in play, a lot of play.

There's social interaction. There's a lot of language building. So they... They're... They are engaged with mathematics.

There's a lot of, just opportunity for them to to do it in a more authentic way, I would say. So so I I would love... I think there there is some bridging between TK and K, obviously, and really building that, like, number sense, spatial awareness, some of those things that are happening naturally. So so, yes, I think that we should talk a little bit more about TK, but I don't want us to think that it's in in favor of saying, hey.

They need to be, you know, writing equations or something.

Right. Of course. Can I please

So...

state board head on for a second on the curriculum question when you're Yeah? With that? The state board is authorized to adopt the curriculum framework for k through eight, but not for TK. So that's actually separate. However, in the Department of Education, they are supporting the learning about curriculum options for TK.

And so there is a lot of work that's going on even though it's not in the k through eight framework. So... Certainly age appropriate, lingo. Yeah.

Learning through music. We we all know that you learn math through music or through art. There are ways to learn

Absolutely.

Yes.

Many ways just playing even with the number of apples you have in your basket. Right? Yes. Absolutely. In the play kitchen....

Is also encouraging the use of the developmental results DRDP, developmental profile

Yeah.

Which includes a math strand, and it does begin in preschool. So the various things you'd hope that the preschoolers are doing to build their knowledge is part of what it gets attended to in the schools that use that framework.

Yeah. I've heard from many teachers about how frustrating it is to have these swings from, new framework and new curriculum adoption, but also that sometimes they don't get the level of support from the state that they would like to see in, implementing... Guidance on implementing how to choose new instructional materials, for example, has been a really hot topic. When we talk about high quality instructional materials, from a teacher's perspective, what does that mean when we talk about adopting that curriculum?

We ask for teachers, often they're busy teachers already, teacher leaders, to come together to review, what, 50 something different options.

How do how do we help support them through that process?

Yeah. That's a great question because it's happening all over California. Because with a new framework comes new adoption. It comes... There's new textbooks, curriculum development, developers are there from the beginning, listening, taking action immediately.

And what we what we know and recognize is that that first wave back in 2010 when we... 2010, 2011. We still have textbooks that are ten years old, and we have a lot of people supplementing and using other resources, not even using their textbooks. And so the challenge right now is, you know, which which books can I trust? And then we're already hearing of the adoptions that are taking place and teachers literally saying, oh, I'm going back to my materials over here.

I'm going back to these things. And those are real statements. These are real teachers, and I think it's it's maybe a comfort. And so with the new materials, really thinking about high quality materials and not just materials. Right?

I could I could talk about this for hours. So let me just focus on multilingual learners. Right? So if you're thinking about high quality materials, you're going to see very specific supports for our multilingual learners. But you're also gonna see in the materials that we value the thinking of our multilingual learners.

We don't just think about it as, oh, deficit thinking. We're thinking how do we how do we fold in all students to use language to express themselves and to think about mathematics. Right? You're gonna see different language routines embedded in in the text. You're gonna see...

A lot of times, we look for language objectives, but you're gonna see those throughout the lesson and not just a one time thing. Assessments are gonna include language and not just the the math. So it's it's it's hard because you have to build capacity of educators and teachers and committees, and part of that is understanding the framework, I feel. And so we can jump into an adoption committee and say, okay.

It's time to look at textbooks, but we haven't even built their capacity around the framework, number 1, but also about what is considered high quality, and what is it that we're looking for.

So... And and and everything I stated earlier is a lot of what you wanna look for in the new curriculum, but it's still a shift. It's still a shift. And so teachers, they... They're starting instead of an I do, we do, you do model, which typically is like I model.

You watch me, then we practice together, and then you do on your own. Very typical traditional classroom. Now you're looking at textbooks versus, okay. Ask kids. It's very open and, like, a little more open.

Right? But what you're doing is you're inviting students in. You're inviting them to bring themselves into the math, and then we're gonna build on that knowledge that they already have. And so that's that's a shift in how I'm teaching. I've always taught with the I do model.

For example, I mean, I taught for nine years. But... So I think that the support will come from, obviously, professional learning. And we we keep saying this over and over, but having support, and that is gonna come from a coach. I served as a coach for, honestly, over fifteen years.

Oh.

And so I know what my role was, and I can't say that I was perfect and made everyone's, you know, magic happen everywhere, but it sure... It... The interactions I had and the things that were said to me as far as my support and and how people were able to grow and how I was able to grow makes a difference in how students are going to experience mathematics.

And so I do think it's so critical that whether it's adoption or instruction or mindset shift, that we need support all all across the board. So

Yeah. And I can say that from some studies that show on the foundational learnings of mathematics, there's still some need in the curriculum. The adopted curriculum does show some need for memorizing the facts because it helps you access your your math faster. And having some of that in your, your long term memory is helpful for students as they build upon math.

And so I I understand that there will be this big picture dreaming big and having conversational math, but some components of it are still doing the math and and some of the basic fundamentals of math.

And so it... This framework seems to be tying those two things together a lot better so that the math that they're learning can actually be applied in context, which makes it more interesting and applied towards bigger ideas. And I think that's gonna make it a lot more relatable, not only to the students receiving it, but to the educators teaching it.

The worry I have is that in our smaller districts where there isn't as much capacity for administrators to be supportive because they're wearing many hats at the same time, Or in our rural communities where it's more difficult to find those math coaches, how are we gonna help support them? Because that's, like, 50% of our school districts.

Yeah. And and it's a substantial number of our our districts that are smalls and rurals and struggle with finding the capacity to implement this. So I'm looking forward to seeing that. I think it was $50,000,000 in our state budget for math coaches this year, and I think that's gonna be really helpful to those districts that need that assistance.

Yeah. And and the... My first thing comes to mind is, like, you know, we have technology, and there's some opportunities for there to be some communities of practice through, you know, through the use of Zoom and...

Because I know there's lots of rural areas, but we are even with the MPLP grant, which you've heard about, looking at communities of practice across different county lines and using using, you know, technology like Zoom, for example, so that we can collaborate and so that we can, Kinda coach each other up. And so there are there are opportunities that, I guess, we could be really, mindful, like, how can we make that happen?

Because I do believe everyone deserves that support. And then to what you mentioned about the math, that is absolutely... We want students to be flexible with numbers, and that is, like you said, just kinda folding the framework with some of our our what we know about mathematics. Math is still at the center. Yes.

Right? But it's how we experience math and how we can take math beyond that classroom, beyond that worksheet, and actually apply it in career, college, and civic life. And so, yeah, we want folks to enjoy math and to see the beauty of math. Yeah.

And I

think the framework can kinda do that for us, really change that.

And you also mentioned how the the importance of family engagement, the role family engagement plays in a student's interest in math or capacity to learn math. Can you explain a little bit more about what you mean by that?

How many hours do you

have? Well, I mean, my my colleagues probably have questions too. But

You know, people... If you know me, you know I'm always gonna bring this up and since you've asked. Like, my parents came from Mexico. My dad was a farm laborer, still working. He's 70, I think, eight.

So I grew up on ranchos. I grew up around oranges and lemons. Right? And so living trees, hundreds and acres of them. I learned so much math at home.

That's my greatest math hero. That's my math teacher. He only had a sixth grade education, Yet that's where I learned my math. That's where I learned my love for math. And so families really, again, don't give themselves enough credit for the math that they use every day, really influence us and shape us into how we how we see education, how we see ourselves, and how we how we see mathematics.

And so I think we need to value our families, value their work, value what they teach at home and what the kids are learning at home from their families, and include them as experts Yeah.

In the classroom. I heard a teacher say, I'm gonna

bring in the

experts. And so really valuing students' thinking, valuing

just how they make sense of the world, and valuing just how they make sense of the world. And then if their children can see that, it really does build their... A stronger math identity, I think. So, yes, family engagement, families at the center are critical and important, and Aye... I'm I'm a testament of that.

Yeah.

Yep. We learned a lot of our math at home too. Yes.

It's

interesting how we don't necessarily fully realize that there's a lot of math going on at home when there is... It's embedded. Right. To my colleagues, any comments or questions you wanna put in?

Thanks. I did kinda just wanna, I don't know, crosswalk a little bit the concepts that we've talked about here. Because on the one hand, we've articulated both of this framework that we want to be able to kind of be our touchstone. And then, we had, miss Darling Hammond talk to us about... Doctor Darling Hammond talk to us about what we know other countries are already doing in terms of having more advanced programs or progress in in mathematics.

And then we also talked about the fact that we have had some... Still have some pretty significant gaps. You mentioned the the the lack of having the middle school and high school kind of curriculum full... Fully revised, the TK not being authorized to be a part of the math curriculum development by the State Board of Education. We've spent a lot of time in literacy for sure and certainly in in math as well, kind of understanding the gaps of of what we are building out.

And it's certainly the case that mathematics were were struggling a little bit. The data does bear that out as a country and certainly within the state of California. What would be your top two or three accelerators as it relates to making sure that there's a greater level of alignment around curriculum for for us here in California?

Yeah. I'll start with you. Yeah.

Either of us?

I think there's the the... On the curriculum alignment question, I think the point that you made is that we have new curricula that do meet the standards and they... As you said, Chair Patel, they are both and. They both, you know, open up the subject and make sure that there's fluency and so on. But it's a big shift.

So to get coherence, I think we need to be sure that we've got the intensity and extensive... Extensiveness of coaching and professional development that reaches everyone. Right now we're reaching some places and not others. And the importance of the coaches that's been noted is that they're there day by day every... Yeah.

They're not going away. They're in the school. In Alabama, I mentioned that bill, every school is getting a math coach. And if they have more than 900 students they get two coaches. And they're just doing it across the board.

We would benefit from something that is much more intentional around that. We may... We're much bigger and we have many more places to worry about. But we might take the lowest performing schools in math and really ensure that they have all of the things that are needed. The coaches, the interventions, the high stakes tutoring, all of that.

And really, I would say not only do it, but then study it and then, you know, scale more of the practices up. The other thing is that we have to deal with the shortages and eliminate them. And we've been making progress on that. But again, in the highest need places, we have so many teachers. And even with math coaching, you'll hear people say, I can't afford to take my one good teacher out of the classroom and make them a coach because Aye...

Where am I gonna get another one? So that, you know, getting that pipeline to really work. And as I say, it's been very encouraging. The last few years, we've had a real increase of... And and much of that increase is residents who go to the higher need communities in greater numbers.

Yeah. We just need to continue to do that at scale that will allow us then to, you know, be sure that not only are there qualified teachers in the classrooms. The last thing I'd say, and I really appreciated your question about preparation. It's a low cost investment to fix preparation compared to what it cost to try to fix the practice of the tens of thousands of teachers later in the field.

You know, fixing the preparation programs in a couple 100 places versus 10,000 school districts is, you know, a bargain.

And we did in literacy sort of articulate here's the what you need to be able to do here. The performance expectations, all the programs underwent rereview to be sure that they had the pieces in place. So I do think that that's a often ignored but high leverage way to get coherence from the beginning rather than having to retrain people once they're in the field.

Do you think do we think that we are... Have we started with the end in mind? Have we started with the end in mind? Do, do we have a sense of kind of doing the backwards mapping around how our children then go to use... Go on to use math in the, in the world and, and then understand what they need to graduate with high school with, and then kind of backwards map with that.

I'm, I'm just curious about the fact that we are missing, missing the revision around the middle school and high school piece.

Our, our, our sort of legal framework in California for curriculum is K through 8. So we adopted each subject area, sort of a K through 8 curriculum framework, and its... And materials for K through 8. So that's part of our, our approach. Legislature could think about how to change that.

So we did not start with the end in mind. We thought... Started with how are we gonna get them to eighth grade? I mean, that's the way the, the rules are written. So I do think that that is a, a challenge.

And the difference between in, in the highest-achieving countries, we're talking Japan, Korea, Estonia, Finland, Singapore. None of them teach the sequence that we teach in, in high school math. They all teach an integrated math one, two, and three. And then they go straight to calculus because they've designed those courses so they haven't missed the things that we stick into precalculus, and then they go on to higher-level math.

So I do think that this curriculum review that the intersegmental math group wants to do could be very, very helpful to us because it's very inefficient.

You know, some of algebra two is repeating some of Algebra 1, and, you know, geometry and algebra aren't taught in relation to each other. So it's harder to understand how those two relate, etcetera. It, it would benefit us to really authorize that kind of a study and recommendations.

And I just wanna add the teacher prep programs. I mean, they really are critical. And I, I was able to teach some of those and bring in the framework, and that was the past framework. And it really made a difference and changed a lot of, I mean, really trying to get help with that anxiety. But I do think the teacher prep programs is something that we really need to give attention to.

I think you'll see a big difference and an impact in a in a positive way.

We certainly need our teachers to feel like they're ready to enter the classroom to teach higher-level math or even basic foundational math. Yeah. Right? Whether it's multi-subject or single-subject.

Yes. Not just to, you know.

Not just to teach it, but to enjoy teaching it....

Idea because, you know, you have to kind of reengage math in a new way to come out and be enthusiastic as well as competent in teaching.

Yeah. Yeah. Any other comments? Well, we have wrapped up our second panel. Thank you very much for being here and providing your insightful comments.

Of course, we will continue to keep these conversations going offline. Yes. Thank you so much. Thank you. We will now shift into panel three: strategies for future improvement.

We have in panel three, Dr. Alix Gallagher, director of education policy and outcomes from the Policy Analysis for California Education. We have doctor Steven Kellner, director of district leadership and state policy, California Education Partners. And we have online Adrian Fisher, Principal Education Commission for the States. Doctor Alex Gallagher also has a PowerPoint slides, which are visible on the screen here in the hearing room, and they are available for view on the Assembly education website under information hearings. And, Doctor Alix, you may now begin.

Thank you very much. Chair and members of the Assembly Education Committee, thank you for inviting me to discuss how California can strengthen early math education. My name is Alix Gallagher, and I am the Director of Education Policy and Outcomes at, Outcomes at Policy Analysis for California Education, or PACE, and a co-author of the research I will discuss today.

The first step toward what children need in mathematics to have control over their lifelong destiny is high-quality instruction that is coherent year to year and aligned with California's rigorous standards. As part of getting down to facts three, we interviewed 94 superintendents from a random sample of districts selected to reflect different regions and district sizes.

We also interviewed 32 state, county, and other education leaders and visited 12 districts to interview principals and teachers. To our knowledge, this is the single largest representative set of data in California about what districts are doing and what they need with respect to TK-8 math. Across almost 250 interviews, everyone we interviewed was working hard to do their job to the best of their abilities and all face challenges.

What clearly stood out from these data is that California's expectations for mathematics instruction substantially exceed the support districts receive and, therefore, their capacity to meet them. Improving children's experiences in math requires the state to close that gap.

We found that district leaders recognize the importance of mathematics but struggle to give it sustained attention. And I put up a slide of the dashboard because that is one of the ways that we show districts what is important. And as you can see, there are lots of dials. When asked an open-ended question about their district's top priorities, nearly two-thirds did not name math. Leaders described competing initiatives and reporting requirements that made it difficult to maintain a clear instructional focus.

District leaders also reported that many elementary and middle school teachers entered classrooms without the content knowledge and teaching skills to teach math in ways aligned with state standards in the math framework. Across the United States, teacher preparation programs typically integrate content knowledge, teaching skills, and clinical practice over a multi-year program. A getting down to fact study found that 55% of new teachers in states other than California come through multi-year programs. Only 9% do in California.

Another recent study found substandard credentials have more than tripled since 2013.

Our predominant post-baccalaureate preparation model is more costly for candidates than preparation models common in other states. Some candidates may be foregoing preparation entirely because of this cost. Once hired, few teachers find strong support for building their skill in teaching TK-8 mathematics. One in five districts offered no TK-8th grade mathematics-specific professional development learning in the 2024-25 school year. And even when it was available, participation was almost always voluntary.

Equally problematic is what the remaining 80% of districts offered. Professional development in mathematics was typically done through after-school workshops that teachers could opt into. Decades of research have shown that one-shop workshops are both expensive and ineffective. The current system produces uneven and inequitable student learning because few districts support their teachers in ways that research shows supports instruction. Guidance for curriculum adoption is another gap.

Leaders describe the difficulty of translating the state's mathematical framework, mathematics framework into classroom instruction and choosing among a long list of approved materials. Almost 40 approved titles for k eight math in the most recent state adoption. Other states provide clear examples of how a state agency can transparently select a few titles best aligned with the standards and incentivize their adoption by funding aligned professional development that helps teachers use those materials well.

Lastly, no state entity is accountable for ensuring districts get the support they need, and what high-quality support is available typically comes through grants and fee-for-service. Districts piece together support from various state entities, math initiatives, nonprofits, and vendors.

The supports they found most help... Helpful were those that provided sustained engagement for an entire grade level or school, often including instructional coaching that provided feedback for teachers and supported their collaborative learning. And yet this was rarely what districts receive. So what should the legislature do with these findings? The legislature needs to lead the charge to improve quality, redefining the state role and local control as one where the state supports districts' ability to make effective local decisions.

Mike Kurst, the central architect of our current system, has come to the same conclusion. First, make improving student outcomes in mathematics an explicit, sustained state priority. Align funding and support with that priority and reduce reporting requirements that consume time without helping districts improve. New initiatives will have limited benefit if they simply add another demand to an already crowded agenda. Second, establish clear responsibility for ensuring that every district receives high-quality instructional support aligned with their needs and tailored to local context.

Funding supports and accountability for outcomes must be aligned so the state, regional entity, and local district are all held accountable for making the system work for kids. Third, improve the state's guidance on instructional materials. Simplify local selection processes by identifying a small set of stronger options, explaining their strengths and limitations, and pairing them with implementation support. Clearer guidance can preserve local choice while reducing the work each district must undertake on its own. Finally, and you've now heard this across the panels, strengthen teacher preparation.

Expand integrated four-year pathways that combine a bachelor's degree and teaching credential, and offer extensive clinical experience. Fund them such that future teachers enter the teaching profession without debt. Early mathematics improvement depends on what districts can sustain across classrooms and over time. California should expect districts to improve student learning, and the state should take responsibility for ensuring that districts have the support needed to do so. Thank you for the opportunity to share your findings...

Our findings, and I welcome your questions.

Thank you. Doctor Keller?

Thank you for the opportunity to address you today and the future of the early mathematics instruction in California. Chair Patel, members of the education committee. My name is Steven Kellner. I represent California Education Partners. I'm an experienced educator, school leader, and former California district superintendent.

As you've already heard, the math kids master in their earliest years is one of the strongest predictors of how they'll achieve academically and even whether they'll graduate from high school. At my organization, California Education Partners, we work hand in hand with over 100 districts across the state to build internal capacity and strengthen systemic outcomes for students. Our partners tend to be the small and medium-sized districts that don't have the team or the resources of large urban districts.

They often need clarity from the state about goals for students and need support to achieve those goals. Small and medium-sized districts educate over half the students in the state, but are often overlooked in policymaking.

As California seeks to strengthen student learning in math, our focus must extend beyond individual teacher practice to build a coherent systems in each district. Too often, early math instruction remains fragmented across transitions between early learning settings and elementary schools, as well as from grade to grade. We have seen that when we support districts to build coherent instruction from grade to grade, students succeed. The findings from the most recent getting down to facts as you just heard reinforce this reality.

There's an important role for state leaders to play in ensuring that districts have clear goals for student learning and the capacity and sustained resources they need to achieve those goals.

While California's system has and should continue to emphasize meeting local needs with local control, opportunities exist to solve problems that are better solved at the state level. Achieving lasting progress in early math is both a governance and an implementation challenge. Meaningful advancement requires active alignment across three key pillars. First, state actors setting clear goals, providing stable resources, and enabling the structural conditions for success. Second, local boards of education establishing policies that prioritize early math, maintain accountability, and hold space for systemic improvement over short-term fixes.

And finally, district superintendents and staff executing a focused, dedicated strategy that creates coherence between grade levels from transitional kindergarten through third grade. When state policy, local board governance, and administrative leadership are aligned, school districts can build sustainable infrastructure that they need to elevate early math achievement. California has taken bold policy steps in recent years. However, most of the hard work remains to make these policies a reality inside every single classroom.

Too often, state-level action has been viewed as a finish line when it's actually just the beginning of a long relay race.

So first, supporting high-quality TK. Expanding TK creates unprecedented access, but expanding access alone will not improve math outcomes. The policy must now focus on curriculum alignment, as you've heard today, and developmentally appropriate, high-quality P3 math articulation so that TK learning seamlessly connects with kindergarten through third grade. Second, Reform State Board approval of mathematics framework and curriculum. Again, the speakers have been pretty consistent on this.

The state needs to recommend fewer high-quality curricula. This year, by our count, 63 possible math curricula were approved. It's impossible to design follow-up supports to implement this number of curricula. Meanwhile, as you've also heard, other states pick just a few curricula and build systems needed to support and implement them well. And finally, focus on local leadership.

Elevated state focus on early learning, whether through our new education commissioner, specialized divisions, or targeted p three initiatives, provide... Provides critical visibility. Yet administrative appointments are only as impactful as the implementation support delivered directly to county office of education and local school districts. In short, state mandates and structural additions create the target. Local systemic capacity provides the results.

To secure a strong mathematical foundation for every child in California, state policy must continue to invest in building system-level capacity at the local level. We urge the committee to support policies that incentivize p three coherence, foster stronger governance alignment, and provide districts with the resources needed to turn state-level policy baselines into sustainable classroom successes for every student. Thank you for your time and for your leadership.

Thank you, Doctor Kellner. We'll now go to our online presenter, Adrianne Fisher. Can you hear us? Technology is amazing, really.

Testing. Testing. Testing. Can you hear me?

Yes. We can hear you. Please, please proceed when ready. From our display, it shows that you're still muted. Can you hear me?

Hi, Chair. I can hear you on our end. We just can't hear the panelists on her, from her end.

Okay. Well, while we figure out the technical difficulties that are going on behind the scenes, maybe we can go to some questions for our panelists in the room right now. I have a few questions for you, doctor Gallagher. A key finding that I took from the testimony that you provided is at the heart of improving math achievement in California is some of the lack of coherence within our systems.

We discussed earlier with the earlier panel, with the changes that AB181 hopes to have, bring forward.

Do we think that this will improve systems, and what processes or guardrails would you recommend to make sure that we get there as we look at coherence?

Thank you. I think it's an excellent question. It is clear that AB181 is groundbreaking legislation and is... Puts us in a much better position, but it's also not the end result in and of itself.

And so I think a few of the things that would be really important to do, You know, instead of having short-term initiatives, you know, we heard actually across both, both Doctor Kellner and myself, we talked about the importance of district capacity and the fact that as, as a kid, if you have one teacher who's very engaged in math and has gotten framework trained and, and teaches in all the ways we heard about in the proceeding panel, and the next year, the teacher has not done that and is not confident in math.

The learning trajectory that we want for kids that should ultimately culminate in kids who are prepared to do... Enter whatever careers they want with confidence in their knowledge and skills, that doesn't happen. And so the, the key needs to be to focus really on, on a long-term play for building capacity. And part of that is probably thinking when you're when you're funding initiatives, we analyze the different initiatives, and we found that few of them focused on districts.

We have initiatives that build the skills of individual teachers, and those can create teacher leaders and are not bad.

There are others that focus heavily on family engagement. And as we heard in the proceeding panel, that is important. So we're not saying those initiatives... Nothing to fault with those initiatives, but there's a gap. And the gap is the fact that very few of those initiative dollars focus on building district capacities.

And the organization's districts and schools. That's where there's the potential to make sure kids have a coherent experience year after year. So we wanna elevate the importance of thinking in a, in a systemic way. We also noted that there is no entity that it's responsible for supporting districts to improve in math. And on the one hand, there are 58 county offices that are either locally elected or appointed.

They are the main regional entity. Somehow, we need to make sure there is regional capacity. And it's probably unreasonable to expect every county office to have an incredible depth in every single area. But thinking about what it looks like to make sure every district is within reach, either virtually or, or by going to neighboring counties to get really strong expertise, would be key. I will double underline what folks said earlier about the promise of coaching.

There have been some literacy coaching grants that the legislature has passed and governor has signed that have found positive effects. But one provision that was not in our legislation but was in legislation of other states that have made more progress than we have is requiring those coaches to be trained. And I will note, you know, some of those other states hired coaches centrally that might not be possible at our, you know, geographic spread.

But the idea of centralized training could be particularly helpful because studies have found that in rural areas, they could not find trained coaches. And so that's a place the state could really step in to help fill, help fill those gaps.

Lastly, districts need to have a say in who their providers are. We talk to, you know, right now, differentiated support. A district is supposed to get support from a county. The way county offices are funded for that has changed in ways that seem pretty beneficial, but we still talk to districts that were frustrated by the fact that their county did not have expertise, but a county next door did.

And so they were taking their, you know, discretionary dollars and working with a neighboring county that had, had more expertise in math, and, and sometimes with outside providers.

If they felt, you know, they looked at their county office, we talked to districts that said our county offered no math professional supports this year, so they have to go somewhere. And figuring out what it looks like to give districts more choice so they can find providers that meet their needs, that can be shoulder to shoulder with their teachers over time to really give teachers the opportunity to practice, to form the relationships that enable vulnerability, and to improve over a long term.

Improve over a long term. Those are a few of the things that I think would really... Could come with this more streamlined governance and would be really impactful.

Yeah. And I think, listening to what you've just said, I think there's a lot of consistency also with the concerns around... We don't see local disc... Or districts having math as a local priority. If your local leadership doesn't isn't well trained in mathematics instruction, they may also not see that as a, as a priority.

And so that lack of coherence between what the local district leadership thinks and prioritizes translates into, maybe, reduced resources available to that classroom teacher, release time, priority budgeting on coaching, etcetera, etcetera. And it, it can go in many levels. So I think that's, that's interesting that that coherence question is not really necessarily only focused on state coherence, but actually internal to a local school district and then passing through the county as well. So thank you for those insights, for sure. Assemblymember Bonta?

Thank you.

I, I think this is one of those instances where it's unfortunate to kind of be old. Like...

Well, just... I feel like

I'm in a serious kind of deja vu moment. I think a lot of what you have talked about today, I... We were talking about twenty-five years ago. I had to think about the age of my youngest child when we were talking about district-level reform, making sure that we were having a prioritization around math, mathematics in particular, making sure that there was alignment between, you know, schools, districts, counties, and the state, state, the state, you...

Utilizing our county offices of education or as regional centers with particular expertise.

Like, these are all things that we've, like, literally been talking about for twenty-five years. And I don't know if you're as impatient as I am about the fact that we're having a twenty-five-year-old conversation.

What in the world are we gonna do that's gonna be different in this moment in time so that my daughter, who is now 27, and literally she is the one I marked time by around having these conversations so that she isn't the 50-year-old sitting, having that same conversation.

Yeah. I do think it starts with getting clear about what the most important goals are, and especially in elementary school. And that's a policymaker conversation. How are we going to signal? We've done a pretty good job of signaling that literacy is really important.

When we talked with superintendents, they all understood that. We, we have to do well on literacy, and math was very far behind that. So part of that is really raising awareness. I don't know if the dashboard is the right place to look, if there are other places to look.

But really thinking about how do we get clear that there are a very few things that every kid must have by the time they lead elementary school, so they can then go into a hopefully revised middle school program and then enter high school prepared to take on whatever they would like.

So I think step number 1 is that prioritization. Step number 2, I think you've heard a lot today, is about teacher preparation. And it is key to get really much, much more clinical practice for teachers, as well as the content knowledge. The number of people who talk to us about math mindsets that their teachers did not have, and I believe you, Speaker Patel, mentioned this, that I'm not a math person. We can't have principals who think of themselves as not a math person and do better.

And, and I was told that by, you know, the math lead in one of the largest districts in the, in the state, that that was a common issue in her district. And lastly, really thinking about district capacity and making sure that all districts can get teachers the support they need. I don't wanna undersell the importance of teacher preparation. It is key. We are leaving too much up to districts.

But I think it's also really important to recognize that what we want from teachers change. Right now, we're asking teachers to know how to handle AI in the classroom. Five years ago, that... There's no way teacher preparation programs could have built those things in. And so I think we need to do some thinking about teaching as a career and the fact that teachers need more time built into their schedules regularly for learning and understanding that what we ask of teachers isn't just to know things.

It's not like you can walk out of a, you know, a workshop with a few new facts and be ready to go. When we ask them to make big shifts, they need opportunity to practice, and they need support to be able to improve. And so, really thinking about those three things, you know, fewer clear goals, improve teacher preparation, and building district capacity to support teacher learning.

I think those three things need to come together so that we are not having this conversation again next year, next decade, etcetera.

And we do have our online presenter now. I have one final question for you, though. This just triggered a thought. We also have... We have unified school districts.

We have elementary school districts, high school districts, secondary school districts. When we talk about coherence, you're talking grade level to grade level. But do we see coherence disruption when we talk about transitions between an elementary district and a high school district, and are there ways to improve that?

Do you wanna take that one on?

I happen to know Doctor Kelner knows something about this. So...

Thank you. So in my previous life as a superintendent, I was superintendent of a high school district, and we had, we had nine elementary districts that send us kiddos. And as you might guess, it was seamless.

There was never any, and as you might guess, it was seamless. There was never any issue. What I would say there though, is, is there are ways to intentionally bridge those gaps. There are ways, just as we're seeing now with our, with our colleagues in, in early childhood. We have, we have kiddos coming from threes and fours into our TK spaces.

We can do a better work with going from eighth grade to ninth grade. And, and that has to do with leadership governance teams at both the elementary and high school districts seeing themselves as stewards of the same kid. Because when a, when a student graduates from eighth grade and walks across the stage, the elementary district isn't done. Right? And so I think that that shift in perspective would go a long way to, to serving the kiddos in our communities.

Thank you for that. We are gonna go now to our online presenter, and then we'll come back for questions.

Hopefully, you can all hear me now?

Yes. Okay. Great.

Sorry about that. A virtual presentation wouldn't be complete without a lesson in humility. So thank you to the AV team for helping me troubleshoot. And good afternoon, everyone. Thank you, Chair Patel, and members of the committee for inviting me to speak today.

My name is Adrienne Fisher, and I'm a principal on the policy team at Education Commission of the States. As we've heard from some of the other esteemed panelists today, due to the stagnant national assessment results in math achievement, an increasing number of states are looking for ways to better support students and teachers.

Some of those states have enacted policies aimed at improving foundational math skills, particularly in the elementary grades, and with a focus on professional learning for educators, assessment and intervention, high-quality instructional materials, and other school supports like coaching. My testimony today will focus on the policies enacted by Alabama, which I know has been alluded to by other panelists, but I'll cover some of the key components of the enacting legislation as well as some of the implementation reporting and evaluation that has been conducted.

I do wanna emphasize that this is all secondary analysis, so it reflects only what's in statute and reports that have been published by the State.

But in 2022, Alabama became one of the first States to enact a comprehensive suite of math policies for elementary grades with the passage of the Alabama Numeracy Act. The ANA established the Office of Mathematics Improvement within the State Education Agency, as well as two task forces to help implement a bill, including the following key components. In teacher preparation, the postsecondary math task force was charged with providing recommendations for revising preparation coursework and certification requirements, and that guidance was published in 2024.

The ANA also requires educator preparation programs to incorporate coursework related to dyscalculia. In professional development, the Elementary Math Task Force was charged with developing a continuum of professional learning focusing on foundational mathematics content knowledge.

Professional development is required in all elementary schools designated as full support or limited support for all teachers involved in mathematics instruction, as well as other teachers and role groups as determined by the Office of Mathematics Improvement. For curriculum assessment and interventions, the elementary task force also vetted and approved recommendations for high-quality instructional materials.

All K five students must be assessed using an assessment system also vetted and approved by the task force, and any student identified as having a deficiency must receive immediate intervention as part of a multi-tiered system of support. Summer math programs were also established for students not meeting proficiency. And other coaching and school supports, the ANA designates one mathematics coach for every public K-5 school with a student population of less than 802 coaches for a school for schools with student population of 800 or more.

Schools designated as full support or limited support based on student math achievement scores are given priority for those coaches. Those coaches design professional development based on school data to support instruction, administering assessments and interpreting student data, and implementing a multi-tiered system of support. Funding for the ANA in 2026 was appropriated at 114,000,000. That funding is used to support the activities designated in statute, and districts may have some flexibility in determining its use.

Shifting to reporting and evaluation, the ANA requires annual reports from the Office of Mathematics Improvement on student progress, providing a summary analysis of data reported by districts in 10 metrics that are defined in statute.

And these metrics include assessment results and student proficiency rates by grade, student growth measures, and coaching endorsement attainment. The first annual report followed school year 2023-24, which was the second year of ANA implementation, and the most recent report followed school year 2024-25. Some of those takeaways include that some of the policy components are not yet fully implemented. Metrics could not be reported for coaching or student assessment related to fractional reasoning.

Both reports showed some improvement in grade-level proficiency over time, with seventeen percent of fifth-grade students who had previously scored below proficient at the end of third grade reaching proficiency in school year 2023-24 and fifteen percent of that group in 2024-25.

Reporting for school year 2024-25 showed small improvements in summative assessment results for grades two through five. And in both annual reports, it was noted that summer math program attendance was low when comparing eligible students to participation rates. A five-year evaluation by an external consultant is also required by the ANA. This evaluation focuses on implementation processes and outcome analyses for the components of the ANA. Annual reports and quarterly updates are required by statute.

The most recent annual report outlines progress during school year 2024-25, which is now the third year of implementation, and takeaways from those annual reports and quarterly updates include the math achievement in grades three to five has improved since ANA began implementation, but growth in those schools designated as needing higher levels of support has not exceeded growth in schools without a support designation. Schools with math coaches did not show meaningfully greater math proficiency than similar schools without coaches.

However, evaluators did note that further research is needed to explore that relationship between coaching and school and student performance. And while principals and schools with a support designation reported that the ANA had improved their teachers' math knowledge and pedagogical skills, evaluators didn't find evidence of changes in math content knowledge or pedagogical skills year to year among the participating teachers. Some of the teacher survey results showed both positive and negative outcomes from A and A implementation.

Some of the positive ones being student learning outcomes, increased student engagement, and greater self-confidence in their instructional practices. And some of the negative outcomes included increased workload, stress, and time constraints. Recommendations from these reports included improving clarity around support services across full support and limited support school designations, requiring districts to provide more complete data from screening assessments, and strengthening coaching data collection and proficiency rubrics. And that concludes my testimony. Thank you so much for inviting us to speak today.

Thank you so much for being with us, Doctor... Or Missus Fisher. Appreciate the insights on what other states are doing and the progress that they're achieving, and we look forward to seeing what that five-year report looks like. Thank you. A question I have for you before I come back to you, Doctor Kellner.

The Alabama Numeracy Act has done a great job of improving mathematics scores across the board, but in your testimony, you mentioned that it hasn't yet been able to shrink that gap between the highest- and the lowest-performing schools. Based on early implementation data, do you have any thoughts on why that gap is still so persistent?

So just to be clear, the, the comparison that was made in the reports is not necessarily between highest and lowest. Just, I, I understand why you phrased the question that way because the limited and full support schools are clearly the lowest performing.

The report does talk about that they're working on some of their rubrics when it comes to coaching and really looking closely at how they're being trained and how those supports are being implemented, and ensuring that they're being implemented with Fidelity and in a way that they can measure. So I think that that will be part of the conversation. Beyond that, I think probably the best folks to talk to are the ones on the...

With boots on the ground. I'm, I'm mostly going off what's, what's in these reports, but they do talk in these reports about a lot of their lines of inquiry and what we might see in the years to come in these evaluations, as well as the quarterly reports kind of outline how they're progressing with structuring those evaluations in a way that is best for seeing how these outcomes work.

They did note that one challenge that they are having moving forward is that now that they've, not quite fully, but they're very close to full implementation on the coaching end of things in the sense that I think they are expecting to be at a 100% of full and limited support schools having at least one, if not two, coaches by next school year.

And so that makes it difficult from an evaluation perspective because they will no longer have a comparison group to compare those designated support schools to that don't have a coach. So I think they're thinking through how to do some of that evaluation work moving forward as well.

Thank you. Yes. If you change the variables through the experiment, it confounds the data. That is also part of math instruction. So thank you for, for pointing that out.

It does help us put a, a good focus point on it. Going back to you, Doctor Kellner, you had mentioned specifically that the local capacity for doing this instructional leadership might be lacking in some places. Can you tell us how the state can support our local school districts and their leadership so that they can have capacity? I'm gonna ask you to be brief because we are running up on time.

Absolutely. I think one thing that was referenced in a couple of the other responses was, was the ability for school districts to seek the support in the areas that they most need, regardless of their geography. So think of it as, as accountability with autonomy. So if, if their local county office does not have the ability to build their capacity, can they take those differentiated assistance dollars and go to the next county office that can provide it? Currently, they're not allowed to do that.

And so it does hamstring the ability of local districts, even if they know what they need to build that capacity long term.

Thank you for that. Appreciate it. It gives us something to think about policy-wise. That concludes our third panel. Appreciate you being with us here today and for your thoughtful discussions.

You know that I'll be looking at this report very in-depth. I... Page nine was particularly impactful for me. It's the visual of all the different agencies that work together, including our county offices, to deliver education for our students. It is a jumbled org chart.

Thank you. We'll now move on to public comment. We'll welcome public commenters. You may step up to the microphone, and we ask that speakers speak for only one minute. Identify yourself, please, as you come forward.

Good afternoon. I'm Matt from Mercado from Ed Voice. Thank you, Doctor Patel, and the, the other members who aren't here anymore, but thank you for, for today's hearing. It's a very important topic. And there's so much from today that we strongly agree with, but we just wanna double down on the need for action in this arena.

We are extremely focused on math achievement in our state, and we believe that as the economic and and technology leader for not only our nation, but the world, we need to really double down on adopting policies and playing policies well and focusing folks on improving math achievement. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Patel. Three quick points. First, please feel free to tap into the expertise from the charter sector. There's a lot of schools from the California charter sector that we think have done a great job as laboratories of innovation that can contribute to this. Secondly, I think we need to pay attention to what our public universities in California are saying.

We know from the UCSD report, there's a big math gap. And the question is, could we create a feedback loop that works between our high schools and our, and our institutions of higher ed to make sure that there's a connection between the two? And lastly, I think, to build on doctor Gallagher's comment, if we wanna prioritize math, we need to choose.

And I think part of that choice could be: are there things that we can take out of the education code that are activities that we shouldn't be doing so that local districts have the capacity to focus on math?

Before stepping away, can you please identify yourself for the record? Identify yourself for the record.

Thank you.

Sorry. Gregory McGinty with the California Charter Schools Association. Thank you.

Thank you. And as we draw to a close of our hearing today, I wanna leave our listeners with some final thoughts. First of all, thank you to our panelists and our public commenters and my colleagues for bringing their insightful comments and thoughts and their input into today's hearing. We're starting off this hearing in a way we're prepared for the next legislative cycle, with some good information to make sure our policy is timely.

I'd like to also note that while LCFF spending has significantly increased over the last decade, math proficiency outcomes have not, and that is the real core of our challenge.

Are we budgeting our values and our priorities appropriately? We take these remarks today as guideposts for us working forward to be stewards of a system that makes math proficiency a reality for all California students. That is my goal, and I think that's the goal of all the panelists that were here today to present to us. Thank you for your attention for today's long hearing, and hopefully, we'll see some good things come out of it. Have a good evening.

This meeting is adjourned.