Washington State OSPI Launching Revised Math Standards, Some Questions Go Unanswered

The State of Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction is revising Math standards from Kindergarten through three years of high school math. Current standards were set in 2011 as a part of the nationwide mandate to adopt Common Core. Usually districts directly adopt those state standards with no changes. State tests are aligned with the standards, and the results are then communicated in the state report card. 

The revised learning standards process actually began in 2024. (This timeline, updated in December 2025, also outlined updates for English, Science and other subjects).  As noted on the learning standards web site “Drafts of the learning standards for ELA, mathematics, and science were available for public comment from August 16 through September 27, 2024.” Final adoption is set for the summer of 2026.

Three sessions in early January related to high school have already taken place, along with a webinar session that happened earlier today, and one more online sessions scheduled for tomorrow, Jan 21 where attendees can learn and then ask questions.  

Link to Zoom Meeting for January 21 at 4 pm

An OSPI representative stated in an email, “The Math webinars...will specifically cover Math Fluency and support educators in their current implementation of the revised learning standards. We will not be answering unrelated questions at that time.” 

In an email sent to OSPI, I asked three questions:

1. Were any outside consulting firms paid to provide guidance on the math standards? Which firms, how much, and what were the deliverables?
2. What specific individuals provided input? Who was on any working groups?  Who led the working groups, and are there reports from them available?
3. Who is the final author of the standards doc? Who actually had input and signed off on the documents in Excel, PDF and Word?

The only response that came back, “For your specific questions, you would need to complete a Public Records Request". This creates an unnecessary barrier of information not available to the public, while none of the documents have authors or information about feedback used to shape the revisions. There is no way to determine how they are interpreting fluency, and who is giving this feedback and decision making on fluency standards.

To learn more about the new math standards, some suggested documents include:

• Key shifts in K12 math
  • New data science requirements in every grade, a focus on creativity and critical thinking, and stating the word “fluency” is not just speed or knowing factors, so the word: "fluency” should be defined as follows: “Students are fluent when they are able to choose strategies that make sense for the problem, adjust those strategies when needed, and use them to get correct answers.”
• Proposed math standards (113 pages)
  • Included are these key goals of the revisions:
    • Structure and integrity—Support student learning progressions and educator access to nationally aligned resources to support high quality mathematics instruction.
    • Data Science—Ensure students can collect, analyze, understand, and critique data in a technologically data-driven world.
    • Uplift—Center the Standards for Mathematical Practice to encourage multiple ways of thinking about and doing mathematics, and for students to see the value of mathematics in their lives.
    • Clarity—Shift to “flexibly, efficiently, and accurately” to provide clarity in what it means to be mathematically fluent. Determine—Clearly identify the content included in the first two credits of high school mathematics.
    • Prioritize—Clearly identify standards to ensure all students have equitable access to the knowledge and skills that can be leveraged, both in school and beyond.

💁There is a survey open until Feb 13, 2026 for educators and others to provide feedback.

❗What is missing from the 113 pages are test score results, nor mention that test scores are very low, nor that for the most part, scores have not recovered to pre-Covid levels. (Example: the state report card shows that in 2025, 40.7% of students were at SBA levels 3 and 4 in math, compared to 48.9% in the 2019 test cycle, the last one before Covid).

❓With any adoption, a key question is “who’s involved.” Dozens of organizations, plus a few private sector employers, are listed in this document. However, the only in-person event listed on the page was “Attendees at Native Family Literacy Night, La Conner, WA”. There is no mention of how many people attended this event or what the feedback was. 

❗Strikingly absent are State PTSA, any STEM groups, any Math teacher groups, and any specific colleges or universities other than the University of Washington and Northwest Indian College.  Every group listed represents a very large number of members, but there is no summary of research or input available on the learning standards web site. 

❗Over 10 years ago, I attended a math day where I got to have lunch with the department head of math at a major university. I asked him some questions, to which he emphatically stated “we really blew it on Common Core by not insisting that proofs be an important part of the standards.” I am left to wonder what thoughts or  requests for math standards are asked of the teachers and professors at colleges who have to remediate under-prepared students, or the placement advisors who have to inform students that they are not yet ready for college-level math, and that they need to take high school level classes again?

So what are the take-aways for students and parents?

1. Parents need to be aware of what the school districts are supposed to teach, monitor what actually happens, and likely will need to supplement with materials that build math skills and the traditional form of fluency. 
2. Parents need to monitor how their child is doing, likely through tests that they give themselves. There are no metrics about current realities, no claims of how those can improve, and zero acknowledgement of where the time will come from for all this data science they propose to add. My feeling is any time we ask for more content, the state should say they are funding extra days in the school year, or longer days. But that is not happening any time soon. 

A final closing comment:
❗There is no acknowledgement of advances in brain science or of understanding how students learn, as forcefully articulated by Dr Barbara Oakley and other educators. The “standards of mathematical practice” circa 2011 are not challenged, critiqued or modified. There’s no citing of best practices, or of drawing on lessons learned from districts or states that are doing relatively well. 

I will follow-up with an article after the Math Webinar Sessions this week.