Apply Procedural Knowledge: A Case Study of Equity in the

High School Math Classroom

Leo Borg
University of California, Berkeley
December 2023

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Bachelor of Arts Requirements in

Interdisciplinary Studies (UGIS), The University of California, Berkeley

Advisors:
Dr. Amm Quamruzzaman
Professor Oliver O’Reilly
Table of Contents

2 — Abstract
3 — Introduction
4 — Review of Literature
8 — Theoretical Framework
9 — Educational and Pedagogical Theory
11 — Cognitive and Mathematical Theory
12 — Liberatory Theory
14 — Overview
15 — Data and Methods
24 — Results
33 — Discussion and Conclusion
40 — Appendix
41 — References

1
 Abstract

There is a large gap in research that specifically investigates how the cognitive and

intellectual content of curriculum may relate to equity. Such an investigation, conducted in this

study, is crucial to grasp the full impact of pedagogical materials upon equity in learning

environments. By critically analyzing the mathematical integrity of curricular materials, I seek to

determine if there is a correlation between equity and the depth of learning made available to

students. This study focuses on two classrooms from different schools in the Bay Area that serve

significantly different socioeconomic populations. It uses both a quantitative and qualitative

analysis of pedagogy and curriculum, along with interviews with teachers. The body of research

that pertains to equity in education would predict that the school that is located in an affluent area

and has a less diverse and more socioeconomically privileged student body is likely to have

superior curriculum and pedagogy. However, in this case, the converse holds. Critical content

analysis reveals a significant difference in mathematical integrity between the textbooks. These

findings also imply the amount of time spent in group work scenarios is not necessarily

indicative of the depth of learning that students experience. Moreover, whether a problem

requires a student to demonstrate conceptual or procedural knowledge may not be an accurate

indicator of the actual depth of knowledge it requires of a student. Finally, both teachers

expressed a desire to improve their familiarity with and expertise in equity-based pedagogy, but

indicated that time and money were often the primary limiting factors that prevented them from

doing so. The experiences of these teachers suggest that paid professional development

opportunities for teachers could be promising for the proliferation of equity-based pedagogy.

KEYWORDS: math education, curriculum, equity-based pedagogy, group work, teacher

training

2
 Introduction

Over the last few decades, educators and educational researchers have sought a clear

understanding of the ways that large-scale societal dynamics are reflected within and reproduced

by the education system. In particular, a major theme of educational research in the U.S. has

been the study of inequity, both from a systemic and an interpersonal viewpoint. This has

resulted in a wealth of research that evidences deep structural connections between social

inequity, educational institutions, and pedagogical strategies (Hammond 2015; Rogers et al.

2014; Rubin et al. 2006).

Nonetheless, significant gaps remain in existing research. Specifically, there is little

research that addresses the constraints that teachers face and the obstacles they encounter with

regard to implementing equity-based pedagogy. This presents a problem because any attempt to

integrate equity-based pedagogies into an “ordinary” classroom must be informed by an

understanding of the practical limitations that teachers experience. With this knowledge,

developers of pedagogy can design more effective interventions that are logistically feasible for

educators.

Moreover, research that seeks to understand the relationship between pedagogy and

equity often fixates primarily on teaching techniques at the cost of examining curricular

materials. While interpersonal dynamics and pedagogical interventions are both fundamental

determinants of equity in the classroom, they alone do not comprise a complete image of a

student’s educational experience. There is a large gap in research that specifically investigates

how the cognitive and intellectual content of curriculum may relate to equity. This investigation,

which I will conduct in this study, is crucial to grasp the full impact of pedagogical materials

upon equity in learning environments. By critically analyzing the mathematical integrity of

3
curricular materials, I seek to determine if there is a correlation between equity- both in the

relational sense and the socioeconomic sense- and the depth of learning made available to

students.

Review of Literature

There is a large body of research that analyzes the U.S. education system as a social

institution. In this academic tradition, it has long been known that the resources available to

students in educational settings are directly correlated with their socioeconomic status. Some

studies focus on this correlation with respect to the variety of pedagogy students experience,

while others focus the academic rigor of instruction. Still others investigate facets of the

educational environment such as school funding, facilities, and instructional time.

One seminal work in this area, by Jean Anyon, draws comparisons between schools

according to the demographics of their students (Anyon 1980). In this work, she demonstrates

that student demographics are directly correlated not only with the educational opportunities they

receive but also with the quality and philosophical orientation of the pedagogy they are exposed

to. As a result, upper-class students are more likely to be supported to develop a variety of skills,

while lower class students are more likely to be restricted to rote learning environments. Other

studies have illuminated a persistent pattern known as learning time loss, in which high-poverty

schools tend to experience “absences, delays, disruptions, and interruptions that reduce

instructional time or divert time away from instructional purposes”at higher rates than

low-poverty schools. In particular, a study by John Rogers, et al. (Rogers et al. 2014) compared

available learning time across a breadth of California public high schools. This investigation

found that teachers, students, and administrators in high-poverty schools face a large array of

4
obstacles, including issues with school facilities, increased teacher obligations, and external life

stressors, that their low-poverty counterparts experience at much lower rates. This suggests that,

in addition to lacking tangible physical resources, students who attend high-poverty schools are

afforded significantly less instructional time over the course of their academic career than

students who attend wealthier schools.

In addition to its emergence between schools, this phenomenon of inequity along

socioeconomic lines is present within individual schools. In their influential case study of

Berkeley High, Beth Rubin et al. investigate the common practice of tracking, by which students

are funneled into different academic pathways (Rubin et al. 2006). These pathways are organized

by rigor, ranging from remedial to advanced, and are ostensibly designed to sort students by skill

level. However, as Rubin et al. argue, this practice has the effect of reifying inequity because

students who are already socioeconomically disadvantaged are more likely to be placed in a

lower track than their privileged peers. Moreover, there is a disparity in the quality of instruction

between higher and lower tracks. Rubin et al. demonstrate that this practice introduces additional

logistical and bureaucratic obstacles for students who are placed in a lower track but seek

upward academic mobility. Consequently, the ultimate effect is a deliberate and institutionally

sanctioned type of segregation in which claims of meritocracy eclipse the material needs of

students.

Tracking policies are a quintessential example of a broader phenomenon in the U.S.

education system in which policy decisions intersect with pedagogy to dictate the dynamics of

the classroom. In this regard, there is a strong body of research that evidences deep relationships

between pedagogy and equitable learning outcomes. One illustrative example is a study

conducted by Jo Boaler which found that a heterogeneous classroom (in other words, a

5
classroom composed of students of varying abilities) provided not only positive outcomes in

terms of students’ academic achievement, but also created a classroom culture of mutual respect

and equity (Boaler 2006). This work in particular is important because it contradicts the

assumption that students learn best in similar-ability groups- the very assumption that undergirds

the widespread policy of tracking. Furthermore, it demonstrates a promising avenue by which

educators might cultivate relational equity in their classrooms without sacrificing academic

performance. Several other pedagogical strategies, notably complex instruction and

project-based learning, are also well-known to educators and educational researchers within the

realm of equity-based pedagogy. These strategies are explained in more detail in the Theoretical

Framework.

Much of this research is grounded in a rich tradition of educational and social theory,

which encompasses a variety of equity-based pedagogies. Many of these pedagogies have been

designed to address a specific marginalized position within society, such as class, or were

developed using existing frameworks in the social sciences, such as feminist theory. For

example, class-sensitive pedagogy, put forth by Stephanie Jones and Mark Vagle, is designed to

combat bias on the basis of social class by intentionally disrupting classist assumptions built into

the discourse and structure of the classroom (Jones and Vagle 2013). Red pedagogy, developed

by Sandy Grande, draws from both Indigenous epistemologies and critical pedagogy to

formulate an explicitly decolonial pedagogy (Grande 2014). The most foundational of these

pedagogies is Paulo Friere’s theory of critical pedagogy (Freire 2018), which I elucidate in my

Theoretical Framework section.

Overall, educational literature predominantly focuses on two mechanisms by which

inequality is manifested and perpetuated within the school system: institutional circumstances

6
(including internal administrative decisions and external social factors) and classroom

interactions. However, the relationship between the nature of written curricular materials and

educational equity is not fully understood.

Many studies are quick to note that lower-income schools typically have older textbooks

than higher-income schools, but this is generally mentioned as an aside, treated as self-evident or

assumed to be common knowledge. However, surely the year in which a textbook was published

cannot be the best metric for its quality. This is especially true in light of the recent widespread

Common Core State Standards (CCSS) reform. The curriculum was developed through a

deliberate research process and yet, a decade into its implementation, it has become clear that

something has gone fundamentally awry (for a discussion, see Wu 2020). The content of the

Common Core Standards represents, on the whole, a considerable departure from previously

adopted state standards (Porter et al. 2011), and at the time of their adoption in the early 2010’s,

many researchers were optimistic about the potential of CCSS to dramatically improve the

quality of mathematics education in the U.S. (Schmidt & Houang 2012). However, the standards

were implemented to varying degrees of success. This prompted a flurry of debate and

speculation in the popular media about the efficacy of CCSS, but there has been a noticeable lack

of evaluative research conducted by academicians.

Finally, there exists a small but significant body of literature on the methodology of

educational research. Because of the large size of the U.S. education system and the copious

social dynamics at play within it, it is extremely difficult to obtain a data sample that is

sufficiently large and random to allow for generalizability, even when limiting the scope of a

study to a certain geographic area. Several key papers provide insights into the possibilities for

educational research in the modern age (Lemke & Sabelli 2008; Jacobson, Kapur, & Reimann.

7
2016; Jacobson, Levin, & Kapur 2019). In particular, these authors argue for viewing the

education system through the lens of a complex systems conceptual framework, in which the

interactions of a large number of moving pieces can be modeled and traced using data analysis

tools. The concept of emergence from complexity theory is particularly relevant to educational

research that seeks to understand patterns and causal relationships. In their analysis, Jacobson et

al. demonstrate that traditional methods of research, either qualitative or quantitative, are

unfortunately not fully equipped to employ the depth of data gathering and processing needed to

make generalizable conclusions about such a complicated system (Jacobson, Levin, & Kapur

2019). As a result of this recent development in the theory, many educational researchers may be

readjusting their ambitions or contemplating how to create meaningful research while

acknowledging the inherent un-generalizability of their findings. This philosophical question was

a major consideration in the creation of the present study.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework used in this study is based on the connections between the

author’s perception of four broadly defined areas: education (as a social institution), pedagogy

(as a practice), social inequity, and mathematics. We use the term “area” rather than “discipline”

because these categories are established in formal academia to varying degrees. However, we

argue that, to pursue the research question, it is necessary to name these areas and view them as

discrete. Despite this, each of these areas correspond to one or more disciplines. For example,

both education as a social institution and social inequity are generally studied through a

sociological or historical lens. Pedagogy is studied within the realm of cognitive science as well

as the specific discipline that is being taught, such as mathematics.

8
 Educational and Pedagogical Theory

Firstly, the theoretical framework used in this study conceptualizes education as a social

institution and pedagogy as a practice. This choice deliberately narrows the scope of the study

and enables specific connections to be drawn between the areas of focus . This also enables us to

clearly distinguish between education and pedagogy. These terms are often conflated in

colloquial language and academia alike. In contrast to the social and systemic terms on which

education is often studied, pedagogy consists of concrete teaching strategies and specific

embodied experiences that occur within the structures of the education system. Social inequity,

then, can be understood to have distinct connections to education versus pedagogy.

To establish connections between social inequity and education, we use both Pierre

Bordieu’s theory of reproduction of sociocultural inequality in education (as described in Nash

1990) and Gloria Ladson-Billings’ theory of education debt (Ladson-Billings 2006). Bordieu’s

theory is based on the broader theory of sociocultural reproduction, which is prevalent in the

study of social institutions in general. Sociocultural reproduction theory is concerned with how

social institutions perpetuate and preserve existing social dynamics, with a particular emphasis

on social stratification. Bordieu applies this theory to education as a social institution by focusing

on how the structures of the education system support and uplift upper-class students to the

exclusion of lower-class students (Nash 1990, page 436). According to Bordieu, the education

system does this by valuing the social and cultural characteristics, habits, and worldviews of

students who are already privileged, thus granting them more opportunity to succeed. This

systematic effect results in more negative educational outcomes for students who are already

socially disadvantaged, which, in turn, reproduces their disadvantage by reducing their social

9
mobility. Interestingly, scholar Roy Nash (Nash 1990, page 436) argues that one of Bourdieu's

main critiques of the education system is “its structured refusal to develop a universal pedagogy-

a pedagogy that takes nothing for granted- able to succeed with relatively unprepared working

class pupils”.

The theory of education debt, created by Gloria Ladson-Billings, is resonant with

Bordieu’s theory of sociocultural reproduction in education. Ladson-Billings coined the term

“education debt” in response to widespread discourse about “achievement gaps” along racial and

socioeconomic lines (Ladson-Billings 2006). She argues that, while perhaps well-meaning, the

“achievement gap” discourse implies that students of color and lower-class students are

somehow deficient. This discourse is situated firmly in the present and refuses to critically

understand the history of education in the United States. Ladson-Billings’ theory of education

debt, on the other hand, is predicated on this history and reveals the ways that these marginalized

groups have been systematically excluded. The theory of education debt asserts that this

historical and ongoing exclusion has resulted in an accumulation of inequity, in terms of

knowledge, sociopolitical power, and economic status. By analyzing education in this way, it

becomes clear that the “achievement gaps” between privileged and marginalized groups are

merely symptoms of a larger systemic and historical problem.

The theoretical framework used in this study conceptualizes pedagogy as related to, but

fundamentally different from, education. Whereas education can be easily viewed from a

systemic perspective, pedagogy occurs at the individual and small-group scale. It is dependent on

the social dynamics within a classroom, the attitude and aptitude of the teacher, and the specific

context in which instruction occurs. Many scholars of education have demonstrated that this

context cannot be separated from broader social institutions (see, for example, Nasir et al 2013).

10
While this is undeniable, we emphasize that pedagogy is also directly derived from the actual

academic content that is being taught. To demonstrate this, we will use the theory of knowledge

structures (such as those elaborated in Redish 2003) and Hung-Hsi Wu’s theory of Textbook

School Mathematics (Wu 2020).

Cognitive and Mathematical Theory

The theory of knowledge structures has been a mainstay of cognitive and learning science

for decades (for example, Kuhn 1993). This theory is used to understand how the brain stores

and accesses information as well as how it organizes cognition. In this framework, we

specifically apply this theory to math education in a similar manner to Edward Redish (Redish

2003). Redish uses the theory of knowledge structures to explain how students reason in the

physics classroom. According to him, a knowledge structure is a “pattern of association of

knowledge elements”, which are small and potentially isolated pieces of information (Redish

2003, page 24). Depending on the educational context, these patterns may be probed to activate

together if the instructor provides the tools for students to strengthen the association between

their knowledge elements. This theory implies that a primary goal of instruction should be

assisting students in fortifying their knowledge structures. While this theory is abstract, its

applicability for pedagogy lies in its focus on the coherence and consistency of both the

instructive methods and the content that is being taught. This theory serves as an abstract

precursor to the more concrete theory of Textbook School Mathematics.

“Textbook School Mathematics” is a term coined by Hung-Hsi Wu (Wu 2020, page xiv)

to describe the particular characteristics of the modern mathematics curriculum in the United

States. This theory posits that the K-12 mathematics curriculum generally “lacks clarity…

11
mostly asks for rote memorization… neglect[s] the inherent logical structure of mathematics…

and fail[s] to recognize the mathematical purpose behind each topic” (Wu 2020, page xiv). Wu

emphasizes that using such a curriculum results in students severely lacking a coherent

understanding of mathematics. The theory of Textbook School Mathematics proposes a

double-pronged approach to improving math education: curriculum must be improved and

instructors must receive better training, both in the specific content they teach and in pedagogical

strategies. This theory proposes improved pedagogy as a partial remedy to the phenomenon of

Textbook School Mathematics. While Wu does not draw any explicit connections to the broader

mechanisms of society, I believe that his theory fruitfully intersects with the study of social

inequity. In particular, Wu’s theory implies that students whose teachers are more pedagogically

adept have a better chance at surmounting the intellectual incoherence of Textbook School

Mathematics. Studies of educational inequity have demonstrated that wealthier schools tend to

have better-trained teachers who are equipped to employ a wider variety of instruction (an

illustration of this can be found in Anyon (1980)). With this in mind, my theoretical framework

aims to draw connections between the quality of mathematics curriculum, the quality of

pedagogy, and the reproduction of social inequity in education.

Liberatory Theory

Finally, the theoretical framework for this study is informed by theories of liberatory

pedagogy. The most general of these is Paulo Freire’s theory of critical pedagogy (Freire 2018).

Freire argues that a central goal of education for marginalized people should be the development

of “critical consciousness”, which is a clear awareness of their situation and how they may best

take liberatory action (Freire 2018, page 109). This development takes place through

12
“problem-posing education”, which serves as a direct contrast to rote learning (Freire 2018, page

83). This theory allows me to draw more explicit connections between instruction, societal

inequity, and equity within the classroom. In particular, it highlights the mutual exclusivity

between rote schooling and the development of a holistic understanding of the world. In addition,

this theory emphasizes that equity-focused education must prepare marginalized people to act

upon their position in society in order to improve it. Critical pedagogy has been massively

influential to educational research and has served as the foundation for many subsequently

developed equity-based pedagogies. While these pedagogies often take inspiration from Freire’s

critical pedagogy, they tend to be narrower in scope (for instance, Grande 2008). Consequently,

we do not anticipate directly using them in this research, but their existence is notable.

Complex Instruction and Culturally Responsive Teaching are theories of liberatory

pedagogy which have wider applicability (Cohen et al. 1999; Boutte et al. 2010). Both of these

theories have been central to recent pedagogical approaches to equity in science and

mathematics. In Complex Instruction, learning occurs through group tasks in which

communication is central and multiple abilities are both valued and necessary. This theory posits

that organizing the classroom in this way increases relational equity by encouraging students to

assist each other and engage in positive and productive communication (Cohen et al. 1999). In

addition, complex instruction engages students in higher-order thinking, which is essential to

develop their cognitive abilities. The theory of Culturally Responsive Teaching asserts that

students are more engaged in learning and have better educational outcomes when pedagogy

deliberately respects and invites their culture into the classroom (Boutte et al. 2010). Importantly,

both of these theories translate into actionable teaching strategies that, with guidance, could be

13
accessible for most K-12 teachers. These theories draw the final connection between pedagogy

and equity in the theoretical framework for this study.

A visual overview of the theoretical framework is provided below.

14
 Data and Methods

In order to answer the research question, we collected several types of data. The first of

these were obtained through classroom observations. We attended a total of eight hours of class,

approximately four from each of two schools. Additionally, for each of the lessons observed, we

collected the corresponding curricular material. This includes the textbook section, any relevant

worksheets, and a lesson plan, if the teacher has made one. We also conducted in-depth

interviews with two teachers, one from each school, whose lessons we observed.

In our outreach to secondary school teachers in the Bay Area, we wrote via email to over

100 secondary school administrators in the East Bay area. This is because most schools do not

post teacher emails on their website, so the administrator emails are often the only external point

of contact with the school. We asked that they forward our request for observations and

interviews to the mathematics teachers at their schools. Unfortunately, we only received

affirmative responses from teachers from two schools. This indicates that the majority of

administrators did not forward the survey to the mathematics teachers at their school or that the

majority of teachers who received the message were not willing to participate. With this

limitation, the study gravitated more naturally toward an approach bearing more resemblance to

a case study than a broad study. The benefits and limitations inherent to this approach are

discussed in more detail in the Discussion section.

Our analysis of the classroom observations focuses on two variables: the degree of

student participation and the degree to which a variety of learners are supported in the classroom.

In order to measure these variables in a meaningful way, it is important to establish some

standardized dimensions by which to assess them. Firstly, we measure the degree of student

participation by coding pedagogical interventions according to whether they involve:

15
 (1) teacher lecture and student individual work,

(2) teacher lecture and some student participation,

(3) student group work on a prescribed or simple task (such as a worksheet), or

(4) student group work on a complex task (such as a project or creative endeavor).

For each class period, we calculated what percentage of the total instructional time was

spent in each mode of participation. In addition, we gave each class period a total score, which

we will refer to as a pedagogical index, which is simply the weighted average over the total

minutes in the class period. This pedagogical index is intended to reflect the “average” type of

pedagogy that students are exposed to over the course of a class.

We also qualitatively measure how much each pedagogical intervention supports a

variety of learners by noting the abilities that are required to participate, perform, or benefit fully.

OnceweI have identified the abilities required of the students in each intervention, we also note

when the pedagogy and/or curriculum provides opportunities for students to substitute one ability

for another or to use multiple abilities to different degrees. This concept can be thought of as the

“degree of flexibility” of the pedagogy.

Finally, we conduct a content analysis of curricular materials, which can include

textbooks, worksheets, and lesson plans. In a similar fashion to our pedagogical analysis, we

categorize curricular materials along both a quantitative and qualitative dimension. The

qualitative dimension measures the degree to which curricular materials support a variety of

learners. This is done by taking note of the abilities that are necessary for students to benefit fully

from the curricular materials, and categorize the degree of flexibility of the curriculum by noting

if and when it is possible for students to participate by using an alternative ability.

16
 We also measure the level of thinking that the materials require of students. For example,

a worksheet might require simple factual recall, an original analysis into a problem, or the

practice of a newly introduced method. Specifically, this study utilizes the metric established by

Anderson et al. in their revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy, entitled A Taxonomy for Teaching,

Learning, and Assessing (2001) This taxonomy consists of three figures. The first of these

explains how to categorize a given task according to its knowledge demand (Anderson et al.

2001, page 29). It is encapsulated in the figure entitled “The Knowledge Dimension” on the

following page. The second figure provides a framework for categorizing a given task according

to its cognitive demand (Anderson et al. 2001, page 31). The final figure combines both of these

dimensions of classification into one table, which provides an overview of The Taxonomy for

Teaching and Learning (Anderson et al. 2001, page 28).

17
 The Knowledge Dimension

MAJOR TYPES AND SUBTYPES EXAMPLES

A. FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE – The basic elements students must know to be acquainted with a
discipline or solve problems in it

Aa. Knowledge of terminology Technical vocabulary, musical symbols

Ab. Knowledge of specific details and elements Major natural resources, reliable sources of information

B. CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE – The interrelationships among the basic elements within a

larger structure that enable them to function together

Ba. Knowledge of classifications and categories Periods of geological time, forms of business
ownership

Bb. Knowledge of principles and generalizations Pythagorean theorem, law of supply and demand

Bc. Knowledge of theories, models and structures Theory of evolution, structure of Congress

C. PROCEDURAL KNOWLEDGE – How to do something, methods of inquiry, and criteria for

using skills, algorithms, techniques, and methods

Ca. Knowledge of subject-specific skills and Skills used in painting with watercolors, whole-number
algorithms division algorithm

Cb. Knowledge of subject-specific techniques and Interviewing techniques, scientific method

methods

Cc. Knowledge of criteria for determining when to Criteria used to determine when to apply a procedure
use appropriate procedures using Newton’s second law, criteria used to judge the
feasibility of using a particular method to estimate
business costs

D. METACOGNITIVE KNOWLEDGE – Knowledge of cognition in general as well as awareness

and knowledge of one’s own cognition

Da. Strategic knowledge Knowledge of outlining as a means of capturing the

structure of a unit of subject matter in a textbook,
knowledge of the use of heuristics

Db. Knowledge about cognitive tasks, including Knowledge of the types of tests particular teachers
appropriate contextual and conditional knowledge administer, knowledge of the cognitive demands of
different tasks

Dc. Self-knowledge Knowledge that critiquing essays is a personal strength,

whereas writing essays is a personal weakness;
awareness of one’s own knowledge level

18
 The Cognitive Process Dimension

PROCESS LEVEL COGNITIVE PROCESSES AND EXAMPLES

1. REMEMBER 1.1 Recognizing e.g. Recognize the dates of important events in U.S.
Retrieve relevant history
knowledge from
long-term memory 1.2 Recalling e.g. Recall the dates of important events in U.S. history

2. UNDERSTAND 2.1 Interpreting e.g. Paraphrase important speeches and documents

Construct meaning
from instructional 2.2 Exemplifying e.g. Give examples of various artistic painting styles
messages, including
2.3 Classifying e.g. Classify observed or described cases of mental
oral, written, and
disorders
graphic
communication 2.4 Summarizing e.g. Write a short summary of the events portrayed on
videotapes

2.5 Inferring e.g. In learning a foreign language, infer grammatical

principles from examples

2.6 Comparing e.g. Compare historical events to contemporary situations

2.7 Explaining e.g. Explain the causes of important eighteenth-century

events in France

3. APPLY 3.1 Executing e.g. Divide one whole number by another whole number,
Carry out or use a both with multiple digits
procedure in a given
situation 3.2 Implementing e.g. Determine in which situations Newton’s second law is
appropriate

4. ANALYZE 4.1 Differentiating e.g. Distinguish between relevant and irrelevant numbers
Break material into in a mathematical word problem
constituent parts and
determine how parts 4.2 Organizing e.g. Structure evidence in a historical description into
evidence for and against a particular historical explanation
relate to one another
and to an overall 4.3 Attributing e.g. Determine the point of view of the author in an essay
structure or purpose in terms of his or her political perspective

5. EVALUATE 5.1 Checking e.g. Determine whether a scientist’s conclusions follow

Make judgments based from the observed data
on criteria and
standards 5.2 Critiquing e.g. Judge which of two methods is the best way to solve a
given problem

6. CREATE 6.1 Generating e.g. Generate hypotheses to account for an observed

Put elements together phenomenon
to form a coherent or
functional whole, new 6.2 Planning e.g. Plan a research paper on a given historical topic
pattern or structure 6.3 Producing e.g. Build habitats for certain species for certain purposes

19
 This taxonomy is an expansion of an established and canonical model in educational

research, and Anderson et al. describe how to categorize pedagogical interventions according to

this framework. This taxonomy also has the advantage of illuminating the degree to which the

curriculum supports higher-order thinking. Specifically, this is encapsulated in the cognitive

dimension of the taxonomy, which corresponds to the numerical scale of 1-6 and is a

measurement of the depth of cognitive involvement that an exercise or activity requires of

students. The knowledge dimension, on the other hand, corresponds to the depth of expertise that

is required of students. The lower levels of this dimension involve simple factual recall and

knowledge of the relationships between concepts. The next highest dimension involves the

implementation of a procedure, which requires more active involvement from the student than

previous levels because they are required to construct something, even if it is by rote. Finally, the

20
highest dimension of knowledge corresponds to metacognition, or the process of thinking about

one’s own thinking.

In order to classify the curricular materials according to this taxonomy, we assess each

practice exercise in the relevant textbook sections and place it in the appropriate category in the

taxonomy. We can then ascertain the levels of thinking the curricula require of students by

counting how many problems from each textbook fall into each category and analyzing the

patterns that emerge.

The final measurement of the curriculum is the degree to which the explanation of the

mathematics aligns with an axiomatically correct understanding of the concepts. This is crucial

because it directly determines whether students have the opportunity to gain an accurate

understanding of mathematics from reading the book or participating in a lesson. The concept of

an “axiomatically correct understanding” is a fundamental one in mathematics in general, but we

will use this term in the same sense as Hung-Hsi Wu in his series of books of mathematics of the

secondary school curriculum (Wu, 2020). For a textbook to inspire an axiomatically correct

understanding of mathematics, it must begin with a set of basic assumptions, known as axioms,

and build each subsequent result by proving it using the axioms and any other results that have

already been proven using those axioms. In the U.S., books that fit this description are usually

not accessible until university mathematics, predominantly because a certain level of intellectual

maturity is required to grasp the purpose and rigor of an axiomatic development. However, as

Wu argues, secondary school students could benefit from a closer approximation of this

development than current curriculum allows for.

21
 Therefore, we will measure the “correctness” of the mathematics, in an axiomatic sense,

by noting to what degree the theorems, equations, and formulas are explicitly justified in the

curriculum. These theorems, equations, and formulas are usually called results in the

terminology of mathematicians. In mathematics, a rigorous proof is a sequence of arguments

which each follow from previous arguments in the sequence in conjunction with a set of basic

axioms. Hence, a proof is a definitive, water-tight demonstration that a particular result is true.

At worst, results are stated outright with no proof or reference to prior material, while at best,

they are proven rigorously with reference to previous results, which were also proven rigorously.

In between these two extremes are results that are not proven entirely rigorously, but

which the curriculum makes attempts to justify or provide motivation for. Keeping with the

mathematical terminology, justification is taken to mean a line of reasoning that is not a proof

but rather a non-rigorous explanation. The aim of justification in a mathematical text is to help

readers gain a preliminary, intuitive understanding of why a result “should” be true. A

mathematical text may provide justification in the form of an example of a special case in which

the result is true or a heuristic explanation that may serve as an outline for a potential proof.

Motivation, on the other hand, is a term used for an exposition of the result. When a

mathematical text provides motivation for a result, it explains why the result is important or

helpful, often alluding to future applications or deeper consequences that the result may have.

To this end, each result that appears in the curricular material is coded according to the

following scale:

(1) Stated with no proof, justification, or motivation whatsoever;

(2) Stated with no proof or justification but some motivation;

22
 (3) Stated with no proof but some justification;

(4) Stated with partial proof (including if the results used in the partial proof were not
themselves proven; and

(5) Stated with proof

Finally, this study compares the qualities of the pedagogy and curriculum with the

socioeconomic characteristics of the surrounding neighborhoods of these schools. Specifically,

the data referenced are the racial makeup of the neighborhoods, average family income, per

capita income, and percentage of families with children under the age of eighteen that are living

below the poverty line. The data used for this study is taken from the 2021 American

Community Survey. The data was drawn from each census tract that corresponds to the school

district’s area of service, then the data points from each tract were averaged to obtain the final

statistic for each school. In the case of one school, this approach offers a higher level of precision

than simply taking the demographic data from the city as a whole, since the city is relatively

small geographically and greater precision was required to demarcate it from its three closely

neighboring cities. In contrast, the area served by the other school is geographically much more

consolidated. However, for consistency, we used the same approach of averaging the data from

each census tract.

There are a variety of ways to measure the resources available to the school and its

teachers. On one hand, the quantitative measurements pertaining to income and wealth

correspond heavily to the financial state of the school. This is because schools are predominantly

funded through property taxes, while parents are also asked to contribute to their schools through

fundraising, which brings parental income and wealth into relevance. A final indicator of the

resources available to teachers is the degree of professional development support that teachers

report receiving from their school, which is also measured in a question in our interviews. In

23
addition, we ask teachers to report the degree to which they feel external factors outside their

control impede their ability to teach, and give them an opportunity to describe these factors. We

classify these responses according to whether the factors teachers report are related to social and

economic conditions. With these measurements, we were equipped to analyze whether the nature

of the curriculum used and/or the nature of the pedagogy employed at a certain school is

correlated with the socioeconomic makeup of the student population.

Results

This study focuses on two high school classrooms in the Bay Area. For the purpose of

anonymity, the schools will be referred to as “School A” and “School B”, and the teachers will

be referred to as “Teacher A” and “Teacher B”, respectively. Both School A and School B are

public high schools that serve between 1,000 and 2,000 students. Teacher A teaches three

different classes, which include a “regular” third year math class, a remedial third year math

class, and an Advanced Placement Calculus class. For this study, I observed both the “regular”

and remedial third year classes. The instructor has been teaching for 13 years in total, all of

which have been at School A. Teacher B also teaches three classes, including Advanced

Placement Statistics, “regular” statistics, and geometry. For this study, we observed both the

Advanced Placement and “regular” statistics classes. Teacher B has been teaching for 18 years,

and previously taught at two charter schools before taking their current position at School B.

Interestingly, and perhaps fortunately for this study, Teacher A was teaching an introductory

statistics module at the time of my observation. Thus, all of the classes we observed were

focusing on statistics. This allows for a more direct comparison of the pedagogy and the

24
curricular materials by controlling for one important variable: the actual content that is being

taught.

We begin with an overview of the basic socioeconomic data of the surrounding areas of

each school. As the chart below demonstrates, the racial makeup of City B is significantly more

diverse than that of City A. Where City A is majority-white (about 61%), only about 46% of City

B is white. Moreover, within every non-white racial demographic, City B has a higher

percentage than City A. In economic terms, while both cities have a relatively high average

family income and per-capita income, City A is notably wealthier by these metrics. Additionally,

after correcting for outliers, City B has more than double the percentage of families with children

living below the poverty line than City A.

Table 1: Socioeconomic Data

CITY A CITY B
Race (pct.) White 60.98 46.40

Black 3.27 5.97

Indigenous* 0.56 1.14

Asian 20.91 28.99

Some other race alone 3.75 5.63

Two or more races 10.49 10.93

Hispanic / Latino 10.12 13.52

Economic Status Median Family Income $170,299.82 $132,834.29

Per Capita Income $71,121.59 $59,745.50

Pct. of Families with 2.28** 5.32***

Children Living Below
Poverty Level
*Includes American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander

25
**with correction for two outlier tracts. 5.54 without outlier correction.
***with correction for one outlier tract. 6.38 without outlier correction.
Data from American Community Survey, 2021.

The data extracted from classroom observations is presented below.

Table 2: Level of Student Involvement as Percentage of Instructional Time, Total

SCHOOL A SCHOOL B
Level of Student Involvement Pct. of Instructional Time

(1) Teacher lecture and 3.35 19.11

student individual work

(2) Teacher lecture and some 3.91 32.00

student participation

(3) Student group work on a 92.74 38.22

prescribed or simple task
(such as a worksheet)

(4) Student group work on a 0 10.67

complex task (such as a
project or creative endeavor)

Pedagogical Index (out of 4) 2.873 2.410

Additionally, each of the two teachers we observed taught two types of classes. At School

A, we observed a regular class and a remedial class, while at School B we observed an Advanced

Placement class and a regular class. The table below splits the data above according to this:

26
 Table 3: Level of Student Involvement as Percentage of Instructional Time, By Class

SCHOOL A SCHOOL B
Level of Student Involvement Pct. of Instructional Time

Regular Remedial Advanced Regular

(1) Teacher lecture and 7.14 0 5.88 30.08

student individual work

(2) Teacher lecture and some 0 7.37 63.73 5.69

student participation

(3) Student group work on a 92.86 92.63 6.86 64.23

prescribed or simple task
(such as a worksheet)

(4) Student group work on a 0 0 23.52 0

complex task (such as a
project or creative endeavor)

Pedagogical Index (out of 4) 2.857 2.926 2.480 2.341

The qualitative data extracted from the classroom observations falls into several

categories. In particular, we focused on the abilities required for students to perform the activities

at hand, along with the actual behavior of the students. The latter proved to be particularly

relevant, given that the majority of the time in both classrooms was spent in group work. The

abilities required for students to perform fully in the classroom did not significantly differ from

the abilities required by the respective textbook. This is because the activities that took place in

the classroom were generally at or below level (3) on the participation scale described above.

Consequently, students in both classrooms spent the vast majority, if not the entirety, of their

time engaging at a level that did not require much originality. In other words, the activities that

students did in class aligned very closely with the problems given in the textbooks for both

27
courses. Thus, the degree of flexibility of the pedagogy was tightly tied with the degree of

flexibility of the curriculum in both classrooms.

Table 4: Qualitative Comparison of Classroom

SCHOOL A SCHOOL B
Abilities required to Reading and interpreting charts Creating charts on a graphing
perform fully Applying probability formulas calculator
Drawing charts Interpreting graphs and charts
Assessing statistical Determine cause and effect
significance Assessing statistical significance
Solving equations and Distinguish the strengths and
inequalities weaknesses of different visual
Drawing and interpreting graphs data displays
Working in teams to collect data Comment on trends in data and
Deciding the most appropriate offer possible explanations for
chart to use for a given data set them
Manipulating exponential
functions
Simplifying expressions
Calculating area and perimeter

Teacher positioning Sitting in desk in the corner of Walking around the classroom
during group work the room Checking in with each group
Not getting up unless a student individually over the course of
raises their hand or calls out the class

Student activity during Conversing with each other, Conversing with each other,
group work mostly about the activity both about the activity and about
Room was often silent for other things
several minutes at a time Room was never silent
Several students were outwardly Frequently raising their hands to
exasperated call teacher over
Occasionally raising their hands
to call teacher over

Student activity during Very little time spent in this Many students (at least 7)
teacher-directed activity mode raising hands in response to
Several students (between 2 and questioning from the teacher
5) raising hands in response to Some students shouting out
questioning from the teacher responses

28
 The curricular materials were first classified according to the Taxonomy for Teaching and

Learning by Anderson, et al (Anderson et al. 2001). Due to the cumbersome nature of the tables,

they will be provided in the appendix and a summary will be provided here.

We analyzed 118 problems from School A’s textbooks. 67 of these were taken from the

textbook for the remedial class (Dietiker, 2014) and 51 of these were taken from the textbook for

the regular class (Kysh, 2015). The chapters for curricular analysis were those that directly

correspond to the material students were learning in the class periods that I observed. Of these

problems, nearly half (57 of 118) fell into the category C3 in the taxonomy, which is Apply

Procedural Knowledge. Questions that fall into this category are those that ask students to

perform a computation by applying a formula or procedure that they had previously been given.

The remainder of the questions were relatively scattered across other categories, but with no

more than 10 in any other category, and with several categories having none at all. These

categories were A5, A6, B1, B6, D1, D2, and D3. Interestingly, when analyzed separately, the

regular and remedial curriculum displayed some differences. Specifically, none of the 51

problems from the regular class book were in category D (which is the metacognitive dimension)

or category 6 (which is the “create” dimension). The remedial curriculum, however, had three

problems in category D and two in category 6, including one question that was in category D6.

While both the regular and remedial curriculum had a drastic spike in questions in category C3,

the spike was slightly more pronounced in the remedial curriculum than in the regular

curriculum. 55.2% (37 of 67) of the remedial problems fell into this category, while 39.2% (20 of

51) of the regular problems did.

Teacher B used the same textbook (Rossman et al. 2008) for their Advanced Placement

and their regular statistics classes. Both classes were covering the same material at the time of

29
my observation. The corresponding section in Textbook B contained 44 problems. Within these

problems, no one category in the taxonomy was as dominant as the C3 category was in Textbook

A. The most prominent categories were B2 (27.3%) and B4 (25%), followed closely by C4

(20.4%) and then C3 (15.9%). While the spread was more even, it was also narrower, as only

seven of the 24 categories were represented. In particular, there were no questions that fell into

category A (factual knowledge) or category 6 (create). Only one of the 44 problems fell into

category D (metacognitive knowledge).

In classifying the mathematical rigor of the curricular materials, an interesting pattern

emerged. The School A textbook section was composed entirely of practice exercises, with little

actual text beyond what was included in the problems. The chapter contains several blocks of

text which provide key definitions that are necessary to do the problems, but no results (again,

this term is used in the mathematical sense of a theorem, equation, or formula). Moreover, there

were no justifications or motivations provided, even parenthetically, to describe the reasoning

behind any of the exercises. On the other hand, the section from Textbook B contained three

results. Each of these results was stated with no proof but with some justification, which classify

them at level 3 of the 5-level classification system.

The chart below reveals the key features of each textbook that emerged during the

qualitative analysis of the curricular materials.

30
 Table 5: Qualitative Comparison of Textbooks

SCHOOL A SCHOOL B
Abilities required to Reading and interpreting charts Creating charts on a graphing
perform adequately Applying probability formulas calculator
Drawing charts Interpreting graphs and charts
Assessing statistical significance Determine cause and effect
Solving equations and Assessing statistical significance
inequalities Distinguish the strengths and
Drawing and interpreting graphs weaknesses of different visual
Working in teams to collect data data displays
Deciding the most appropriate Comment on trends in data and
chart to use for a given data set offer possible explanations for
Manipulating exponential them
functions
Simplifying expressions
Calculating area and perimeter

Substitution of abilities Only possible in the question that Many broad questions which
requires students to work in could allow for multiple
teams to collect data and create a interpretations of the same data
visual representation of it set to be correct

Assistance for those Several paragraphs contain key Several paragraphs contain key
who are confused definitions definitions
Only one example Questions that ask students to
create graphs often provide
detailed instructions
Several pages are dedicated to
describing the process of
creating and interpreting a graph
Several results provide guidance
in interpreting graphs and warn
students of potential pitfalls

Consistency of topic Not every question focused on Every question focused on the
the topic that the section claims topic that the section claims to
to cover. cover
Completely unrelated questions
sometimes appear with no
reasoning behind it (or even a
“review” label)

31
 The final set of data to report is that from the in-depth interviews. The primary purpose of

these interviews was to get a sense of the resources available to the teachers and the limitations

that they face. We also took the opportunity to ask some questions about their general teaching

philosophy and approach to pedagogy in general. When asked if they feel that they have the

freedom to explore new teaching strategies, both Teacher A and Teacher B responded

affirmatively. Interestingly, when asked if they feel that their ability to explore new teaching

strategies is limited by factors outside their control, both Teacher A and Teacher B gave strong

affirmative responses. “I want to do these things, but I can’t do the entire cognitive lift myself,”

explains Teacher B. They go on to state that they feel limited by “[p]arent expectations,

resistance from students, and sometimes there’s a lack of incentive from my fellow colleagues.”

Teacher A expressed a similar sentiment, mentioning “parents, students, and money” as the

major limiting factors for their work.

When asked for their thoughts on their textbooks, Teacher A and Teacher B had notably

different attitudes. Teacher A said, “It is what it is. You just kind of go with it. Maybe it’s not the

best all the time, but it gives you at least a starting point to build your lesson from.” This

philosophy seemed to be reflected in their approach to lesson planning, as each of the classes that

I observed revolved heavily around the textbook. Specifically, the group work that students were

assigned consisted entirely of problems from the textbook.

On the other hand, Teacher B expressed a sense of thoughtful separation from the

textbooks they used. “I'm a huge proponent of the reminder that textbooks are not the

curriculum,” they told me. “Sometimes I have to tell my colleagues: It doesn't matter what you

“covered” [gesturing with air quotes]. That’s a statement of how you spent your time, but did the

students actually understand it?” As with Teacher A, their philosophy also seemed apparent in

32
their lesson planning, as the group work that students were assigned consisted primarily of

Advanced Placement- level practice exam questions (in the Advanced Placement class) or a

separate worksheet (in the regular class).

Both Teacher A and Teacher B felt that they could benefit from more professional

development opportunities from their schools. In particular, Teacher B remarked that their

professional development is dictated by “self motivation, which is cool, but also weird that it's

not being asked or expected of you.” Both indicated that they would feel more able to implement

equity-based pedagogy in their work if they had greater access to training and resources to help

them do so.

Discussion and Conclusion

We begin with the analysis of the classroom observations. One implication of these

findings is that the amount of time spent in group work scenarios is not necessarily indicative of

the depth of learning that students experience. In Teacher A’s classroom, the average pedagogical

index was 2.87, whereas the average index in Teacher B’s classroom was 2.41. This score

reflects the “average” type of activity students are involved in over the course of a class period,

and therefore this contrast indicates that students in Teacher B’s classroom spent, on average,

less time working in groups than Teacher A’s students. The overall dataset indicates that this was

indeed the case.

Based on this data, one might assume that the depth of student involvement in Teacher

A’s classroom was significantly higher than that in Teacher B’s classroom. Yet, the qualitative

observations of the classroom environments tell a largely different story. Although students were

33
assigned group work in Teacher A’s classroom, the attitudes with which they approached the

group work were markedly more detached than those of Teacher B’s students, and the level of

interaction between group members in Teacher A’s classroom was lower than the level of

interaction between students in Teacher B’s classroom. Moreover, Teacher B took a much more

active role in the facilitation of group work than Teacher A. The overall effect was that students

in Teacher B’s classroom were more actively engaged while they were participating in group

work than those in Teacher A’s classroom, even though they spent less time doing so.

This suggests that group work must be effectively designed in order to engender

meaningful collaboration, and that instructor involvement in group work may play a role in the

involvement of the students with each other. Neither of these are particularly new findings (see

Boaler 2006, for example), nor are they likely to be surprising to anyone who is familiar with

educational settings. Despite this, it is still interesting to note the large discrepancy in the quality

and quantity of student-to-student interaction that existed between the two classrooms. It is also

crucial to note the incongruence between the qualitative and quantitative measurements that were

taken in the same environment at the same time. Indeed, however carefully designed,

quantitative metrics can encapsulate only so much of the dynamic environment of a high school

classroom.

Another interesting and perhaps unexpected finding of this case study pertains to the

curricular materials. School A is located in an affluent area and has a student body which is, on

the whole, less diverse and more socioeconomically privileged than the student body of School

B. Consequently, the body of research would predict that School A is likely to have superior

curricular materials to School B. While its textbook is newer (it was published in 2015, whereas

34
the textbook from School B was published in 2008), the content analysis reveals that the newer

textbook is severely lacking in mathematical integrity.

It was difficult to quantify the mathematical approach of Textbook A from an axiomatic

standpoint because it eschewed axioms entirely. The book consists almost entirely of problems,

with some sparse paragraphs providing the bare minimum definitions that one would need to

even understand what the questions were asking. Furthermore, the qualitative analysis reveals

that the book provides very little support for students who may be struggling and very few

opportunities to approach a problem from multiple angles. This has critical implications for

equity. Most obviously, the curriculum privileges students who already have a good grasp on the

subject. For those students who have a fundamental lack of understanding, the lack of actual

exposition means that their misconceptions may never be addressed. Worse, they may even be

reinforced, since the procedural nature of the vast majority of the problems necessitates little

conceptual understanding.

Another notable feature of Textbook A is its extreme focus on C3 questions (Recall that

this category in the Taxonomy for Teaching and Learning is called Applying Procedural

Knowledge). These questions have the merit of asking students to construct their own solution to

a problem, and in this sense they require a level of active involvement from the student beyond

factual recall. However, this active involvement does not necessitate original thought. Oftentimes

C3 questions can be solved by referencing a similar problem as an example and using the same

exact steps while replacing the old numbers with new ones. Therefore, it is possible to get

through these problems by algorithmically applying a procedure while not having a deep

understanding of why one is applying this procedure, where the procedure originates from, or

even why it works.

35
 Moreover, the section from Textbook A contained a variety of problems that were largely

unrelated to what the section was supposedly about. Ostensibly, this could be done for the

purpose of refreshing students’ memory of past topics, but the lack of transparency around why

these problems are included is worrisome. This may give students the impression that

mathematics is an amalgamation of discrete, unrelated topics, which must be learned

individually. Not only does this not contribute to students gaining a clear understanding of

mathematics, but it actively undermines it. Although it does indeed contain a vast array of

subtopics, mathematics is, in fact, a cohesive discipline.

Textbook B also fell prey to some of the same pitfalls as Textbook A. Specifically, the

range of questions it asks is relatively narrow, according to the quantitative classification. Thus,

the range of abilities required for students to fully participate is also relatively narrow. However,

Textbook B is overall much more mathematically sound. Although it is still relatively inflexible,

it has a significantly higher degree of flexibility than Textbook A. This is because, as the

qualitative analysis shows, it generally asks broader questions than Textbook A. These questions

allow for students to create multiple distinct but still valid interpretations of the same problem.

This is a more accurate representation of the practice of statistics than that given by Textbook A.

Additionally, Textbook B contains several results that bear resemblance to theorems, even

though they are not stated as such, and it provides some justification for these results.

Consequently, Textbook B has a higher level of mathematical integrity than Textbook A, and is

more likely to engender an accurate understanding of mathematics.

It is interesting to note that, on average, the questions in Textbook B were classifiable as

lower on the Taxonomy for Teaching and Learning than the questions in Textbook A.

Specifically, the majority of Textbook B questions were at level B (Conceptual Knowledge)

36
while the majority of Textbook A questions were at level C (Procedural Knowledge).

Nonetheless, the questions asked by Textbook B tended to be broader and more conducive to

students creating their own interpretations and thoughts than those asked by Textbook A. This

suggests that, in this case, whether a problem requires a student to demonstrate conceptual or

procedural knowledge may not be an accurate indicator of the actual depth of knowledge it

requires of a student.

The presence of complete proofs in any high school curriculum is likely sparse at best,

due to the limitations imposed by the cognitive demand of an axiomatic approach. However, we

argue that the high school curriculum does have the bandwidth to provide at least some

justification and motivation for the results that it expects students to develop mastery of. When

schools and teachers use books that lack mathematical integrity, such as Textbook A, they do

their students a severe disservice and rob them of the opportunity to develop an understanding of

mathematics beyond Applying Procedural Knowledge.

Ultimately, these patterns in the quality of student interaction and the quality of the

curriculum run somewhat contrary to what educational theory and research would suggest. As

the socioeconomic data show, the population of School B is, on the whole, less racially

privileged and less economically secure than the population of School A. Thus, theories such as

Friere’s banking model of education (Friere 2018) and research such as Anyon’s work on the

correlation between education and social class (Anyon 1980) would predict that the pedagogy

and curriculum at School B would focus more on rote procedural learning than the pedagogy and

curriculum at School A. This hypothesis is somewhat confirmed by the difference in the

pedagogical index between schools. However, Teacher B’s pedagogy was often more interactive

than Teacher A’s pedagogy, and Textbook B is generally less focused on procedural learning than

37
Textbook A. Indeed, Textbook B provides much more of an opportunity for students to develop

an accurate picture of mathematics than Textbook A. Moreover, as the interviews indicate,

Teacher B appears more motivated to ensure her students understand the material, and exposes

her students to multiple sources of material beyond just one textbook.

In our interviews, both Teacher A and Teacher B indicated that they would feel more able

to incorporate more equity-based pedagogy into their own work if they had greater access to paid

professional development and learning resources. Equity-based pedagogy is not commonly

taught in teacher preparation programs, and it is often somewhat disjoint from existing

curriculum and standard pedagogy. Hence, if teachers want to become well-versed in it, they

must either learn it either through an official professional development program or on their own

time and money. Therefore, teachers who serve socioeconomically disadvantaged populations-

the very teachers who would do well to be trained in equity-based pedagogy- may be less likely

to have access to that training. Teacher A and Teacher B both expressed a desire to improve their

familiarity with and expertise in equity-based pedagogy, but indicated that time and money were

often the primary limiting factors that prevented them from doing so. The experiences of Teacher

A and Teacher B suggest that paid professional development opportunities for teachers could be

promising for the proliferation of equity-based pedagogy.

Inherent to any study of the mechanisms of a system as broad as the education system are

a number of limitations. Indeed, as indicated in our review of recent literature, the field of

educational research is currently reckoning with the difficulty of producing generalizable results

through conventional means of investigation. Consequently, this study makes no attempt to assert

its findings to be indicative of any pattern in the education system at large. Rather, we argue that

the main contribution of this study lies in its design. In particular, it combines a social-scientific

38
investigation into the intersection of equity and education with a technical approach to curricular

analysis. This is somewhat unique because the majority of research that focuses on education

from a social justice standpoint does not seek to analyze the mathematical content of curriculum,

whereas research that focuses on the mathematical content of the curriculum tends to address

equity parenthetically, if at all. By doing these in parallel, the approach used in this study

provides a means of juxtaposing the quality of mathematical education, quantitatively measured

in a rigorous way, with the socioeconomic factors that are a familiar staple in the majority of

equity-based educational research.

39
40
References

Anderson, Lorin W., et al. 2001. A Taxonomy for Teaching, Learning, and Assessing: A Revision
of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman.

Anyon, Jean. 1980. “Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum of Work.” The Journal of
Education 162 (1): 67-92.

Cohen, Elizabeth G., Rachel A. Lotan, Beth A. Scarloss, and Adele R Arellano. 1999. “Complex
Instruction: Equity in Cooperative Learning Classrooms.” Theory Into Practice 38 (2):
80–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849909543836.

Boutte, Gloria, and Charlease Kelly-Jackson. 2010. “Culturally Relevant Teaching in Science
Classrooms: Addressing Academic Achievement, Cultural Competence, and Critical
Consciousness.” International Journal of Multicultural Education 12 (2): 20.

Boaler, Jo. 2006. “How a Detracked Mathematics Approach Promoted Respect, Responsibility,
and High Achievement.” Theory Into Practice 45 (1): 40–46.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4501_6.

Dietiker, Leslie. Core Connections Integrated II. Sacramento: CPM Educational Program, 2014.

Freire, Paulo. 2018. Pedagogy of the Oppressed: 50th Anniversary Edition. New York:
Bloomsburg Publishing Inc.

Grande, Sandy. 2014. “Red Pedagogy: The Un-Methodology”. In Handbook of Critical and
Indigenous Methodologies. Ed. Norman K. Denzin, Yvonna S. Lincoln & Linda Tuhiwai
Smith, 233-254. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2014.
https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483385686.

Hammond, Zaretta. 2015. “Climbing out of the Gap” and “What’s Culture Got to Do with It?” in
Culturally Responsive Teaching and the Brain: Promoting Authentic Engagement and
Rigor Among Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students, 12-34. California: Corwin.

Jacobson, Michael J., Kapur, Manu, and Reimann, Peter. 2016. “Conceptualizing Debates in
Learning and Educational Research: Toward a Complex Systems Conceptual Framework
of Learning.” Educational Psychologist 0(0): 1-9.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1166963.

41
Jacobson, Michael J., Levin, James A., and Kapur, Manu. 2019. “Education as a Complex
System: Conceptual and Methodological Implications. Educational Researcher 48 (2):
112-119. https://www.jstor.org/stable/45280846.

Jones, Stephanie Michelle, and Vagle, Mark. 2013. “Living Contradictions and Working for
Change: Toward a Theory of Social Class-Sensitive Pedagogy.” Educational Researcher
42, no. 3 (April): 129-141. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x13481381.

Kuhn, Deanna. 1993. “Science as Argument: Implications for Teaching and Learning Scientific
Thinking.” Science Education 77 (3): 319–337. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730770306.

Kysh, Judith. Core Connections Integrated III. Sacramento: CPM Educational Program, 2015.

Ladson-Billings, Gloria. 2006. “From the Achievement Gap to the Education Debt:
Understanding Achievement in U.S. Schools.” Educational Researcher 35 (7): 3–12.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035007003.

Lemke, Jay L., and Sabelli, Nora H. 2008. “Complex Systems and Educational Change: Towards
a new research agenda.” Educational Philosophy and Theory 40 (1): 118-129.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5812.2007.00401.

Nash, Roy. 1990. “Bourdieu on Education and Social and Cultural Reproduction.” British
Journal of Sociology of Education 11 (4): 431–47.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0142569900110405.

Nasir, Na’ilah Suad, and Maxine McKinney de Royston. 2013. “Power, Identity, and
Mathematical Practices Outside and Inside School.” Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education 44 (1): 264–87. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.44.1.0264.

Porter, Andrew, et al. 2011. “Common Core Standards: The New U.S. Intended Curriculum.”
Educational Researcher 40 (3): 103-116. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41238917.

Redish, Edward F. 2003. “Cognitive Principles and Guidelines for Instruction.” In Teaching
Physics with the Physics Suite, 17-50. Somerset: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Rogers, J., Mirra, N., Seltzer, M., & Jun, J. 2014. “It’s About Time: Learning Time and
Educational Opportunity in California High Schools.” Los Angeles: UCLA IDEA.

Rossman, Allan J., et al. Workshop Statistics: Discovery with Data and the Graphing Calculator.
Wiley, 2008.

42
Rubin, Beth C., et al. 2006. “Structuring Inequality at Berkeley High.” In Unfinished Business:
Closing the Racial Achievement Gap in our Schools, edited by Pedro Noguera and Jean
Yonemura Wing, 29-86, Jossey-Bass.

Schmidt, William H., and Houang, Richard T. 2012. “Curricular Coherence and the Common
Core State Standards for Mathematics.” Educational Researcher 41 (8): 294-308.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23272323.

Wu, Hung-Hsi. 2020. Rational Numbers to Linear Equations. Rhode Island: American
Mathematical Society.

43