San Diego math decline reveals need for statewide strategy

A report about declining math preparation at UC San Diego has been generating hysterical headlines in national news outlets. The steep drops in math performance of incoming students, highlighted in a campus work group report, are indeed disturbing. But the news must be understood in context.  

The problem is not unique to San Diego or California, and the solution is not as simple as reinstating admissions tests, which numerous commenters have suggested. Reversing the decline requires a nuanced analysis and the kind of strategic collaboration among high school and college educators that occurs outside of newspaper columns. 

Last year’s National Assessment of Educational Progress math scores revealed a sharp downturn from 2019, including the largest-ever proportion of students testing “below basic.” The pandemic is one explanation, but longer trends — such as absenteeism and the effects of social media — are also at play. 

Still, some factors are squarely within the control of our education systems: When math expectations are not transparent and aligned across a state’s schools, colleges and universities — which has long been true in California — students’ paths through mathematics become much harder. So does the job of math teachers. 

Fortunately, as Just Equations’ new report highlights, California is among several states that have begun bridging divides to ensure high school students can take modernized math courses that are relevant to them while developing the skills that prepare them for college. Doubling down on these efforts is the best response to the warning signals from UCSD. 

California’s move in this direction began earlier this year, when a joint committee of faculty from the UC, California State University and California Community Colleges published common guidance on math preparation for incoming college students. The unified statement garnered instant support. The California Department of Education signed off on it. So did BOARS — UC’s Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools, which determines the courses required for admission to both public universities.

But guidance is just the first step. Prior joint statements from the same committee (ICAS — the Intersegmental Committee of the Academic Senates) were not widely utilized. Recent history is replete with conflicting signals about math preparation: Students can graduate from some high schools with only two years of math, including Algebra I. Other districts require three or four years. Both public university systems require at least three years of math, with more competitive campuses expecting more: Nearly two-thirds of UC admits have taken an Advanced Placement math course. 

UCSD’s predicament is weighty: At one of the state’s most selective campuses, about 8% of students — and 1 out of 3 from underresourced high schools — struggle with middle school math, requiring three calculus prerequisites. But it reflects longstanding inequities. According to PACE, about a quarter of California students graduate without Algebra II, a quarter take no math as seniors, and nearly half never take an advanced math course beyond Algebra II. Those taking advanced courses are more likely to be Asian, white and higher-income. 

Some San Diego students performed poorly on elementary math questions despite having taken advanced high school math. Correcting this problem requires high-quality instruction, but that is not merely a job for the students’ high schools. “To truly expand opportunity in STEM, California must treat early math recovery not as a K–12 issue, but as a shared responsibility across educational systems,” noted a recent UC report.

Prior attempts to bolster math preparation have not always produced clarity or collaboration. A set of courses that the state funded in 2016 became the focus of rancorous debate a few years later over whether the courses met university eligibility requirements. That, in turn, created a chilling effect around the offerings — including data science and discrete math — even after BOARS’ 2024 decision that they were admissible, particularly for non-STEM students, if taken in addition to Algebra II. 

When collaboration between K–12 and higher education systems does occur, it can be a game-changer. Our research shows the impact of other states that have aligned math expectations. In Georgia, after K–12 and college math educators worked together to redesign high school math courses, the system reported an increase in first-year algebra proficiency and strong results in AP Precalculus. Utah passed a law mandating that all higher education institutions provide dual enrollment math opportunities to any high school student who has completed three years of mathematics. The proportion of students completing four years of math in high school tripled, and the need for college remedial math courses dropped. 

California, likewise, can harness the strength of our K–12 and higher education systems to enhance math learning. The consensus around the ICAS report has encouraged education leaders who seek to implement modernized high school math sequences that engage students and enhance postsecondary readiness. The California Education Learning Lab has already funded efforts to strengthen STEM success and is poised to fund new initiatives. 

Though UCSD’s dilemma is concerning, it arose from a campus commitment to enrolling more students from lower-resourced schools. For a public university, abandoning that commitment is not an option, as UCSD acknowledges. Merely adjusting admissions standards would lessen the need for remedial courses, while reducing access for disadvantaged students. 

Our state cannot forget the greatest challenge posed by the UCSD report: not deciding who will attend one campus next year, but ensuring that education systems collectively improve quantitative literacy for the next generation of Californians. 

•••

Pamela Burdman is executive director of Just Equations, a policy institute focused on reimagining the role of mathematics in education equity.

The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.