California can’t wait to address the math achievement gap

Capitol Weekly welcomes Opinions on California public policy or politics. Please read our guidelines for opinion pieces before submitting an Op-Ed. Submissions that do not adhere to our guidelines will not be considered for publication. 

OPINION — Kindergarten is often assumed to be the starting point for math learning: alongside ABCs, children begin learning their 123s. But based on 30 years of studying how young children develop math knowledge, it is apparent that learning begins long before children enter a formal classroom setting.

Kindergarten may be where we first notice differences in children’s number sense, but it isn’t where these differences start. In fact, gaps in math knowledge between lower- and higher-income children are often evident by age three.

These gaps are rarely about natural ability; they’re about early exposure to mathematical experiences at home or in preschool. Counting objects, comparing quantities, recognizing shapes and patterns and understanding that the symbol “6” represents a set of six concrete objects are essential to building a solid early math foundation.

Children with limited exposure — disproportionately from low-income communities — often arrive at school without the informal mathematical knowledge that formal classroom instruction builds upon. This helps explain why 58% of California middle- and upper-income students are performing at grade level in math, compared with just 26% of low-income students.

I see this in my research with pre-K children. For example, when asked to count the corners of a square, some children include both sides and corners. They aren’t careless — they simply haven’t had opportunities to explore the properties of two-dimensional shapes.

Because math learning is cumulative, students who don’t master foundational knowledge in K-2 rarely catch up without additional support.

California now has an opportunity to address these persistent gaps. Senate Bill 1067 (Weber Pierson) would require universal screening for math difficulties in kindergarten through second grade.

These brief, low-stakes assessments give teachers a more complete picture of students’ foundational math knowledge and help identify children who may need additional support.  Screening is only meaningful if it leads to action — and SB 1067 rightly pairs identification with evidence-based intervention while there is still time to change student achievement trajectories.

For decades, my colleagues and I have worked in California schools serving low-income communities — identifying pre-K children at risk for math difficulties, providing targeted support, and measuring the results. Using this approach, we saw a significant increase in the number of students meeting grade-level expectations by kindergarten.

National research shows similar findings: students identified early and provided timely, evidence-based instruction can make significant and lasting gains in math achievement.

The bill also requires that parents receive their child’s results within 30 days. That matters.

A parent should not have to wait for a report card, a conference, or years of frustration to learn that their child is struggling. When families receive clear, timely information, they can ask better questions, support learning at home, and partner with teachers.

This is especially important in communities that may not always feel comfortable engaging with schools.

Some may argue that schools are over-assessing young children, but this isn’t the case in California. K-2 students complete just one statewide assessment per school year, the Screening for Risk of Reading Difficulties, and English learners complete English Language Proficiency Assessments for California.

Math screening would be a brief addition designed to support instruction, not increase pressure.

Others are concerned that screening could lead to tracking. Early math screening is not about labeling children — it’s about refusing to overlook them. SB 1067 would not lower expectations or deny students access to rich math instruction.

It would do the opposite: ensure that students who are struggling receive timely support while continuing to participate in grade-level learning alongside their peers.

Screening paired with targeted support is not a panacea for every obstacle our students face. But it is a practical step toward reducing inequities before they become entrenched.

We cannot close math gaps by waiting until children have already fallen years behind.

Every child can learn foundational math — regardless of background — with timely, evidence-based support. I urge our representatives to pass and fund this critical legislation.

Alice Klein, Ph.D., is a developmental psychologist and researcher who studies early mathematical development and intervention.