Last year, UCSD reported that in Fall 2024, over 900 students (12.5% of the incoming first-year class) were placed into Math 2 and Math 3B, remedial courses addressing gaps in precollege math. This compares with less than 1% of students placed into these courses before 2021. This raises concerns about whether some admitted students are prepared for the rigorous coursework college is supposed to offer — and whether the admissions process is effectively identifying students prepared for that level of rigor.
In 2020, the UC Regents unanimously voted to suspend the SAT/ACT requirement, citing concerns that standardized tests could disadvantage lower-income students and those without access to test preparation. The original plan was to develop a new test aligned with what UC expected California high school students to know, but the timeline was later deemed infeasible.
So, did this make UC admissions more equitable? Or did they simply remove one measure of readiness without adequately replacing it?
These aren’t just abstract policy questions to me. When I first entered education, running for the school board in 2020, I learned there is an important distinction between equity and equality.
Equality means giving every student the same treatment. Equity means providing each student with what they need to succeed. Most of us understand that closing achievement gaps requires equity.
Yet many policies and practices I have observed locally, statewide, and nationally focus heavily on equal access instead of what different students actually need to succeed. When that happens, we risk lowering standards rather than closing achievement gaps.
This distinction is especially important for policymakers. Teachers work every day to help students succeed; policymakers must set the right direction and create policies that enable teachers to do so. We need policies that support both access and achievement. Providing students with what they need should never mean lowering the bar for what they can achieve.
Let’s use math as an example. I have seen many middle school students rely heavily on calculators and iPads to perform basic calculations. They can get the right answer and move on to the next step without being proficient in the underlying arithmetic skills. On the surface, it looks like we have removed an obstacle. The student can now solve an algebra problem without being proficient in multiplication or fractions. But have we achieved our equity goal in math?
In this scenario, we are removing the obstacles rather than helping students develop the skills to overcome them. A calculator can help a student complete a problem, but it cannot build the mathematical foundation needed to tackle increasingly complex problems independently. A student may pass middle school math with reasonable grades yet struggle at the next level because what appeared to be a simple calculation weakness was actually a deeper conceptual gap. Difficulty with basic arithmetic can reflect weak number sense such as poor comprehension of place values, fractions, decimals, or an incomplete understanding of how numbers relate to one another. Without a solid foundation, we ultimately limit students potential for achievement in mathematics.
If we genuinely care about equity, we have to care about whether students actually acquire the knowledge and skills they need, not simply whether they receive access, pass a course, or are moved forward. High expectations are not the opposite of compassion. Sometimes, believing that a student is capable of doing hard things, and expecting them to do those things, is one of the most powerful forms of support we can provide.
The California Mathematics Framework recognizes that students may arrive at a new grade with “unfinished learning” and recommends against automatically placing them in a separate track that doesn’t reach grade-level standards. Instead, schools should provide additional support, expanded learning time, personalized instruction, and tutoring.
The question is: How do we execute that recommendation effectively, and what happens when the intervention required to keep a student on grade level instruction exceeds the system’s capacity to provide it?
There is no easy, one-size-fits-all solution. If a student enters UC needing to relearn eighth grade math, is it reasonable to expect a calculus professor to provide the additional support, expanded learning time, personalized instruction, and tutoring needed to fill those gaps while simultaneously teaching a college-level calculus course?
At some point, we have to ask whether we are truly providing equitable access to a rigorous education, or simply moving the responsibility for unfinished learning further down the road. Achievement gaps should be addressed as early as possible, before they grow so large that they become much harder to close.
In most public schools, differentiation is addressed through MTSS, Multi-Tiered System of Support. When implemented with fidelity, teachers provide grade level instruction through Tier 1, targeted Tier 2 support for students who need additional help, and more intensive Tier 3 intervention for students with greater needs. The system is designed to provide students with the support they need while maintaining grade level expectations. And in many cases, it works.
But what happens when more than half of a class is below grade level? At that point, can Tier 1 instruction still function as intended? If a teacher is constantly trying to meet a wide range of foundational gaps while also moving the curriculum forward, does “teaching to the middle” ultimately mean lowering the level of instruction for everyone?
There is another piece of this conversation: student responsibility. Schools have a responsibility to identify gaps, provide appropriate support, and give students the tools to succeed. Students have a responsibility to engage with that support, put in the effort, and take ownership of their progress. Support alone cannot close every gap if students are not expected to participate actively in their own learning.
Math, like many skills, comes more easily to some students than others, and we should not expect every student to master every skill at exactly the same age or pace. But with appropriate guidance, practice, and support, we should believe that the vast majority of students can reach meaningful grade-level proficiency. If we are serious about equity, we cannot equate it with access or course completion, or remove standards and accountability in the name of support. Doing so can allow foundational gaps to grow until they become much harder to address.
Equity means maintaining high expectations while providing students with the support and tools they need to meet them, and holding students accountable for engaging in their learning and making progress. It does not mean lowering the bar; it means helping students to clear it.
Vicki Ben-Yaacov, PhD. serves on the board of the Goleta Union School District and is a passionate advocate for STEM education. She leads a FIRST LEGO robotics team at Goleta Valley Junior High School and has supported the Dos Pueblos Robotics Club’s Summer Camp.
