California's updated math curriculum may not require children to memorize times tables DESPITE huge public opposition

California's roughly 6million public school students may soon no longer be instructed to memorize their times tables following the approval of a new version of the state's Mathematics Curriculum Framework.

In an article for The Well News, three STEM professionals outline some of the issues with the new framework they believe will hurt students.

The framework for teaching public school students math was changed in 2023 in California, despite, the article reads 'significant public opposition.'

Public comment about the new framework was 'three to one against it,' in addition to the 'multiple open letters signed by over 1,000 college STEM faculty, (which) pointed out its many harmful flaws. 

'Strikingly, this framework removes all mention and guidance that students should memorize their times tables.'

The new California Mathematics Curriculum Framework has caused controversy among STEM professionals who essentially argue it's being dumbed-down to the direct detriment of students

In the 2023 version of the curriculum framework, educators are not told that elementary school students should memorize multiplication tables

In one specific section of the framework, the sentence: 'By the end of Grade three, know from memory all products of two one-digit numbers' has conspicuously been removed.

'To repeat, the sentence stating third-grade students must memorize multiplication facts is gone,' reads the article. 

California, a large state with a massive economy, to some extent establishes education models for state across the country.

Therefore, write the article's co-authors, David Margulies, Michael Malione, and Sugi Sorenson, it is important to address the primary question of 'Is memorizing multiplication tables important for students?' 

Each of the authors argue an emphatic 'Yes!'

They site 'nationally convened expert panels' who underscore the necessity of learned - meaning memorized - multiplication and division to successfully work with 'whole number operations.'

Furthermore, they describe how cognitive load theory explains that working memory - the place where information is processed and used - is extremely limited. 

Therefore, students who need to call on the working memory to perform multiplication during the middle of a multi-step problem, are in a much worse position than students who are able to retrieve multiplication facts from their long-term memories.

The new framework, however, refers to memorization negatively, calling it an 'unproductive belief,' and using the word in sentences that, according to the authors, use phrases like: 'facts devoid of meaning,' 'low cognitive demand,' 'arbitrary laws,' 'not ‘blind’ memorization of number facts,' and 'unproductive notions.'

Never anywhere, they write, does the framework mention that students should, in fact, memorize their multiplication tables.

The framework has  also changed the meaning of student 'fluency,' reads the article.

The new version of the framework instructs to 'avoid any temptation to conflate fluency and speed.' Even if that means a student will always take minutes on end to calculate 7x7, or 10x12. 

Margulies, Sorenson, and Malione (below) are taking public issue with the framework, which they believe way oversteps in terms of lowering the educational standard of the entire state's math curriculum

Mike Malione - a professional math educator - believes that learning times tables effectively is the only way to build up the skills necessary to compute more complex problems

Whereas students from better resourced homes will be taught by tutors and after school programs, those who rely on the public school system alone will be at a distinct disadvantage and the equity gap will therefore widen, claim the authors

One of the education professionals who offered a public comment on the framework, Brian Conrad of Stanford University's mathematics department, called at least one passage 'ideology in search of citations.'

He was referring to a passage that claimed timed tests contribute to math anxiety.

'None of the cited references support the key claim made about timed tests causing math anxiety, so this entire paragraph must be removed,' he said.

The authors say that believing such claims, let alone applying them to a mathematics education, will do an extreme disservice to students relying on public school education to learn math.

Whereas students from better resourced homes will be taught by tutors and after school programs, those who rely on the public school system alone will be at a distinct disadvantage and the equity gap will therefore widen.