The MIC Pathway
MIC — Math: Investigating and Connecting
A Proposed High School Math Pathway That Leaves Students Unprepared
Though advertised as a ‘Data Science’ pathway to help students access and pursue coveted STEM majors and careers, the new MIC Data Science pathway proposed in the draft framework will actually leave students less prepared for STEM majors than had students followed existing math pathways.
What is a Math Pathway?
A math pathway is a series of math courses that cover the material in a way that is developmentally appropriate for learners. Currently, there are two math pathways that are offered to students: There is the Traditional Pathway and the Integrated Math Pathway. The traditional option consists of Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II. The Integrated pathway (accepted in 2013) consists of Mathematics I, II, and III.
You should know that these current math pathways were both created with great care to ensure that all the necessary content is covered and specified in great detail. They include all the exact same standards, just in a different order. When the Integrated Math Pathway was released, it was easy to follow how the pathway adhered to core math standards as well as see the options these pathways offer for students. It is also important to note that both pathways give students the option to take higher-level courses such as calculus and statistics.
What is the MIC/Data Science Math Pathway?
The MIC pathway is the proposed pathway that would be implemented if the 2022 California Mathematics Framework is adopted. It is different from the current pathways because it is focused on broad concepts rather than specific standards and does not appear to be rigorous.
“The MIC1 and 2 courses are claimed to cover the content of Math I and Math II, but they also contain significant additional topics on “data science” (indeed this is the point). A lack of sufficient details makes it unclear what topics are removed from Math I and Math II to make room for those. MIC 3 and MIC 4 are optional courses and either one can be taken in 11th grade. The CMF (Chapter 8, page 32) states that with either of these 11th-grade options, students in the MIC pathway have “the full range of 12th-grade options” open, including calculus. But it is wishful thinking: these do not cover even all of the Algebra II material (e.g., logarithms), let alone precalculus. This puzzling statement is claimed to be backed up by research, but it is not (see Section 4).” (CMF)
The MIC/Data Science pathway is outlined as the following, with the accompanying recommendations for when to take each MIC/Data Science course (Ch. 8, pg. 15):
Grade 9 MIC-1
Grade 10 MIC-2
Grade 11 Optional - MIC-3 or MIC-4 or MIC-3 and MIC-4 or neither
Grade 12 Optional - MIC-3 or MIC-4 or MIC-3 and MIC-4 or neither
Why will it be bad for students?
The written portion on the pathway is somewhat vague. There are no specific math content standards outlined in the draft. This is distressing because it is unclear if all the important standards will actually be met, or if the combination of subjects will leave important information out of the curricula.
Also, in the image provided by the framework authors, all of the advanced classes are placed in a bubble or cloud at the top. The problem with this is the framework is ambiguous about which courses are actually available to students based on which pathway they took. Hypothetically, a student could jump to any of the advanced courses after completing the first two years of math instruction, but in reality, will they be prepared? Without in-depth base knowledge, students will be unable to thrive in advanced courses such as calculus.
The lack of knowledge and flexibility that this pathway proposes means students will be limited in their decisions for STEM majors in college and it would require more general education classes beyond high school for certain college majors to succeed and graduate.
Additional Information Pertaining to This Topic
-
Traditional Math Pathway
The TraditionalMath pathway includes Albegra I, Geometry, Agebra II, Precalcuus, and AP Calculus.
-
Integrated Math Pathway
The Integrated Math pathway courses, Integrated Math I, II, and III, are rigorous, standards-based math courses
-
MIC/Data Science Math Pathway
The MIC/Data Science pathway is newly formed, and, from the draft framework’s description of its course content, does not appear to be comprised of rigorous, standards-based math courses.
-
MIC/Data Science Pathway and Math Standards
In contrast to both the traditional and Integrated math pathways, there are NO specific math content standards listed in the course descriptions that the MIC/Data Science pathway states the courses will cover; rather, there are simply headings of topics listed.
-
MIC/Data Science Course Content
The MIC/Data Science courses do not appear to be rigorous, standards-based math courses.
-
MIC/Data Science Pathway Claims
the draft framework suggests that students who have taken advanced MIC courses (MIC-3 or MIC-4) can take calculus but at the expense of taking Precalculus!
-
MIC/Data Science Pathway Courses and Advanced Math
A student who desires to pursue a STEM or Data Science college major would, without question, be much better prepared by taking the traditional or Integrated math pathway.
Traditional Math Pathway
Math classes in high school (and in some cases starting in middle school) have traditionally followed a pathway progression of required courses,
“The traditional pathway in US mathematics education in grades 8-12 is the following:
Algebra I (taken mostly either in 8th grade or 9th grade, with 24% of students nationally taking it before 9th grade). It has been a longstanding goal of the US Department of Education and many organizations to increase the number of students taking Algebra I in 8th grade.
Geometry.
Algebra II.
Precalculus.
AP Calculus.”
Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II, after which students may move on to more advanced math courses such as Pre-Calculus, Calculus, and/or AP Statistics, or a choice of other math electives.
The math courses in this traditional pathway (Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II) are long standing, rigorous, standards-based math courses closely tied to the math standards specified in the State adopted California common core standards (CITE). Both the traditional math pathway and the math standards it addresses are outlined in the 2013 California Math Framework, for example (CITE).
Integrated Math Pathway
The Integrated Math Pathway progression, akin to the traditional math pathway, is: Integrated Math I, Integrated Math II, and Integrated Math III.
The Integrated Math pathway courses, Integrated Math I, II, and III, are also rigorous, standards-based math courses, that address the standards specified in the State adopted California common core standards (CITE). The Integrated Math courses address the same exact math standards as do the traditional math pathway courses, with its sequence of Alg. I, Geometry, and Algebra II, just in a slightly different order. The standards that the Integrated Math pathway address are outlined in the 2013 California Math Framework (CITE).
Integrated Math I-III also serves the same role as prerequisites to the more advanced math courses. After completing the sequence of Integrated Math I-III, a student can move on to take advanced math courses possessing the same mathematical foundation as provided by the traditional math pathway sequence of courses.
Just over half of California school districts today choose the traditional pathway and slightly less than half choose the Integrated Math pathway.
It’s important to understand that both the two existing math pathways, the traditional and the Integrated Math pathway, teach the same math standards, and students completing Integrated Math I- III have completed the exact same math standards as students completing the traditional math pathway sequence leading up to and including Algebra II. Students completing either math pathway are prepared to take higher level advanced math courses.
MIC/Data Science Pathway
The newly envisioned draft framework’s MIC/Data Science pathway, however, appears to be unlike these other two math pathways.
The MIC/Data Science pathway is newly formed, and, from the draft framework’s description of its course content, does not appear to be comprised of rigorous, standards-based math courses.
The draft framework, however, presents the MIC/Data Science math pathway as a pathway to coveted Data Science and STEM college majors and careers.
The MIC/Data Science pathway is outlined as the following, with the accompanying recommendations for when to take each MIC/Data Science course (CITE):
Grade 9: MIC-1
Grade 10: MIC-2
Grade 11: Optional - MIC-3 or MIC-4 or MIC-3 and MIC-4 or neither
Grade 12: Optional - MIC-3 or MIC-4 or MIC-3 and MIC-4 or neither
Naturally, with a newly proposed math pathway like the MIC Data Science pathway, the question is, what math preparation will a student receive in these courses?
MIC/Data Science Pathway and Math Standards
In contrast to both the traditional and Integrated math pathways, there are NO specific math content standards listed in the course descriptions that the MIC/Data Science pathway states the courses will cover; rather, there are simply headings of topics listed. This is of grave concern.
The draft framework notes that MIC-I and MIC- 2 (to be taken in the 9th and 10th grade, respectively) “substantially align with CA CCSSM” (California Common Core State Standards for Math) and are an “implementation of Integrated Math I and II augmented by some data clusters moved from IM III” (Ch. 8 Line 370 & Ch. 8 Line 489-492).
But, exactly which math standards do the MIC-1 and MIC-2 courses address? And exactly how does MIC-1 and MIC-2 “substantially align with CA CCSSM”? What content was removed from the ‘implementation of Integrated Math I and II’ to make room for the ‘data clusters moved from Integrated Math III’ into MIC-1 and MIC-2? (Ch. 8 Line 490-493) This information is never disclosed in the 800+ pages of the draft framework.
Without this detail, how would one know what students will learn in these MIC/Data Science courses? It is impossible to know without more detail.
The draft framework does offer a suggestion for measuring the effectiveness of MIC Data Science courses, though, by asking,
“Can I see evidence that students wonder about questions that will help to motivate learning of mathematics and that connect this learning to other knowledge?” (Ch. 8, Lines 465-466)
While wondering about math questions may be valuable, students serious about pursuing STEM careers need to master mathematics standards.
MIC/Data Science Course Content
While specifics are lacking about the math standards covered by the MIC/Data Science courses, the content descriptions the draft framework does provide do not compare favorably to those of the other existing math pathways. The MIC/Data Science courses do not appear to be rigorous, standards based math courses. From the draft framework:
“In a high-school data-science class students can learn to clean data sets, an important part of the work of a data scientist. High school students can also learn to download and upload data, and develop the more sophisticated ‘data moves’ that are important to learn if students are tackling real data sets” (Ch. 5 lines 365-369).
While data cleaning, downloading, and uploading skills are useful to have (and can be taught below the high school level), these and similarly shallow skills are no replacement for the rigorous mathematical foundation required for students to pursue STEM in college. This is even true for students who want to become data scientists!
From the draft framework course content descriptions (CITE), the MIC/Data Science pathway courses seem more oriented towards having students analyze “culturally relevant” social science data rather than engaging in rigorous standards-based math. As the draft framework explains, MIC/Data Science investigations should have “particular attention to culturally relevant activities” (Ch. 8 Lines 1251-1253).
What might “culturally relevant activities” be? One proposed lesson includes a focus on the “increasing” temperatures on Earth’s surface in which students are asked,
“If natural causes cannot explain the rising temperatures, what anthropogenic factors have produced these changes? If temperatures in California’s climate continue to rise, what effects will this have on humans and the state’s natural systems?” (Ch. 8, Lines 719-721).
The investigation continues:
“Each team researches the sources of human emissions of the gas they have chosen, uses their understanding of political and psychological opportunities and barriers to decide on most-likely policy shifts to achieve the desired 25–50 percent reduction in emissions, and prepares a presentation for the class outlining their solutions.” (Ch. 8 Lines 770-773).
Two more examples of what to teach in this course include “Whale Hunting” (Ch. 8 lines 871-969) and Analyzing Diabetes by race/ethnicity and gender (Ch. 8 Lines 1463-1549).
MIC/Data Science Pathway Claims
While the course content of the MIC/Data Science courses detailed above may seem interesting to some, the draft framework claims that a student can take advanced math courses, including Calculus, after completing ‘advanced MIC courses’, including (MIC-1, MIC-2, and) either MIC-3 or MIC-4:
“Any of these advanced MIC courses (MIC-3, MIC-4) could lead to a full range of fourth-year (grade 12) options as set out in the course diagram earlier in the chapter.” (Ch. 8 Line 840-841)
“Thus, this (draft) framework recommends flexibility for students to move from any advanced MIC course (MIC-3, MIC-4) to any fourth-year (grade 12) course, including a calculus course or another advanced MIC course.” (Ch. 8 Line 847-849)
No, not so, according to a group of STEM professional’s critique of the draft framework:
“MIC 3 and MIC 4 are optional courses and either one can be taken in 11th grade. The CMF (the draft framework) (Chapter 8, page 32) states that with either of these 11th grade options, students in the MIC pathway have “the full-range of 12th grade options” open, including calculus. But it is wishful thinking: these (MIC-3 or MIC-4) do not cover even all of the Algebra II material (e.g., logarithms), let alone precalculus. This puzzling statement is claimed to be backed up by research, but it is not (see Section 4).”
(https://gdoc.pub/doc/e/2PACX-1vQvuzlJ8MWthsqOhRLxQc5akGS0JkgThz3umqO3K-WQiXFhWiq9qw-9iYdTyC652Ftjvv5nHvgGYTEv)
Draft framework text seems to support the STEM professional’s critique, stating that MIC-3 and MIC-4 are not implementations of Integrated Math III (the equivalent to Algebra 2):
“MIC-3 Data and MIC-4 Modeling courses are replacements for, rather than implementations of, the Integrated Math III content guidance in the CA CCSSM” (Ch. 8, Lines 805-806 & 848).
“The specifications for the MIC—Data and MIC—Modeling courses are consistent with the broad goals of the Integrated Math III guidance that is provided in the CA CCSSM: ...” (Ch. 8 Line 797-800)
But exactly which math standards are covered in MIC-3 and MIC-4 if they are not ‘implementations of Integrated Math III’, but are simply ‘consistent with the broad goals of the Integrated Math III guidance that is provided in the CA CCSSM”? Already, the draft framework hasn’t specified exactly which math standards are to be covered by either MIC-1 or MIC-2.
Beyond the concern about standards being covered — the draft framework’s claim that MIC pathway students can move from any advanced MIC course (MIC-3 or MIC-4) ‘to any fourth-year (grade 12) course, including a Calculus course’ — means that they would skip taking Precalculus prior to taking Calculus – as they run out of years to do so! (MIC-1 and MIC-2 are to be taken in years 1 and 2 (grades 9 and 10 ) and either MIC-3 or MIC-4 would be taken in year 3 (grade 11)). The draft framework, though, claims that taking Precalculus prior to taking Calculus isn’t necessary — and that students might even be better off by not doing so!
“Research has shown that taking a precalculus class does not increase success in calculus (Sonnert & Sadler, 2014), and recent innovative approaches for students in California community colleges have shown that students who move from Algebra 2 to supported calculus classes are more successful than those who go through prerequisite courses (Mejia, Rodriguez, & Johnson, 2016).” (Ch. 8 Line 843-847)
Thus the draft framework suggests that students who have taken advanced MIC courses (MIC-3 or MIC-4) can take calculus, but at the expense of taking Precalculus!
The group of STEM professionals disagree with this claim, stating it is not even supported by the research the draft framework cites for its claim:
“In order to support the viability of taking calculus in 12th grade following the MIC pathway….the CMF (draft framework) cites the following (Chapter 8, page 32):
The CMF (draft framework) suggests that this paper shows that it might be possible to skip precalculus altogether, but the paper is focused on pre-calculus in college, noting that this population often already took pre-calculus already in high school!
The CMF (draft framework) also claims that this paper shows that “students who move from Algebra 2 to supported calculus classes are more successful than those who go through prerequisite courses.” but the paper talks about moving from algebra to statistics, and doesn’t discuss calculus at all.” (https://gdoc.pub/doc/e/2PACX-1vQvuzlJ8MWthsqOhRLxQc5akGS0JkgThz3umqO3K-WQiXFhWiq9qw-9iYdTyC652Ftjvv5nHvgGYTEv)
Given both the lack of detail the draft framework provides for which math standards the MIC/Data Science courses actually do cover, and given the detail the draft framework actually does provide about MIC/Data Science course content, it seems highly unlikely that students will be prepared to take advanced math courses in high school, like Calculus, or AP Statistics after following the MIC/Data Science pathway..
MIC/Data Science Pathway courses and Advanced Math
Pursuing a STEM major in college requires taking advanced math courses in high school (CITE).
College STEM courses, including Data Science courses, rely upon the rigorous mathematical foundation provided by Algebra and Calculus (CITE). As the draft framework acknowledges, completing calculus is an unstated college admissions requirement for admission for prospective STEM majors (Ch. 1 Line 119-122):
“Considering that many competitive colleges and universities (those that accept less than 25 percent of applicants) hold calculus as an unstated requirement” (Ch 1 Line 116-117) . . . . “if they are not in the advanced mathematics track and on a pathway to calculus in each of the subsequent six years of school, they will not meet this unstated admission requirement “ (Ch. 1 Line 119-122).
A student who desires to pursue a STEM or Data Science college major would, without question, be much better prepared by taking the traditional or Integrated math pathway, and learning actual math content standards, as these pathways are built upon clearly defined standards, and set along a sequence designed to prepare for calculus (link).
Therefore, pursuing the MIC/Data Science pathway would harm any aspiring STEM major, because STEM majors depend upon mastery of math content standards.
It is especially ironic that even students who plan to major in Data Science in college (a rigorous math major), which requires Calculus, are much better served by NOT taking courses in the MIC/Data Science pathway.
That is why 1210 (and counting) STEM professionals and college professors signed an Open letter, telling parents and the general public that students will be unprepared for STEM majors and careers if they pursue math in the draft framework’s proposed MIC/Data Science pathway.