This month, California approved its new set of highly controversial math standards . When it comes to instructional practice, Stanford mathematics professor Brian Conrad wrote a 25-page document detailing the ways in which the research cited in the framework either did not support or directly contradicted its claims. Former Brookings Institute fellow Tom Loveless documented more still, and argued that the framework would put California students years behind the developed world. But California is becoming a world leader in one department: using mathematics as a vehicle for Marxist ideology.

An Education Week reporter noted that the standards “have long faced political criticism—often from conservatives who oppose the idea that math class could be a venue to discuss social justice themes.” But conservatives do not dispute that math class could do this, but rather oppose the idea that it should. Because conservatives are concerned that “social justice” is a euphemism for Marxist ideology—a concern directly supported by the citations in the standards.

The framework declares that “teaching toward social justice can play an important role in shifting students’ perspectives.” To support that claim, it cites a 2019 book by Constantinos Xenofontos, titled Equity in Mathematics Education: Addressing a Changing World . In his introduction, Xenofontos notes that no one seems to explicitly “promote education for social injustice,” and that the term “social justice” is ideologically charged and “employed to disguise different agendas.”

That said, the author roots teaching for “social justice” in the work of Brazilian Marxist Paolo Freire, who “talks about how education needs to move towards decolonization, the breaking of relations between ‘oppressor’ and the ‘oppressed.’” Another academic named Marilyn Frankenstein opened the field of “critical mathematics education,” which was “an attempt to reconceive school mathematics as a site of political power, ethical contestation, and moral outrage.” Xenofontes goes on to note that “other scholars use the term mathematics education for social justice synonymously.” (Emphases in original.)

Xenofontes then explains best “instructional practices that promote equity in the mathematics classroom.” For example, teachers should “monitor how pupils position each other,” by “attend[ing] to reification of existing status structures so as to reposition some pupils with their peers.” Teachers should “construct social structures that enable pupils to develop strategies that help maintain certain positions and reduce others.” They should “validat[e] possible differences in [students’] language practices,” and “acknowledge home language as a valid language of mathematics.” And teachers should “discuss controversial topics,” and “allow social issues to drive instruction.”

Of course, not every math teacher necessarily thinks that math class should be driven by social issues. Xenofontos argues that “the majority of teachers . . . are not aware of the cultural and political dimensions of mathematics education . . . and hold opinions like those that claim, ‘I’m just one of those math for math’s sake people,’ which ‘implicitly legitimates an entire set of social practices associated with school mathematics, and thereby serves to reproduce the power relations enacted therein.’”

Parents might think that math isn’t and shouldn’t be political. But they would, apparently, be wrong. The epigraph to the chapter reads: “By virtue of mathematics being political, all mathematics teaching is political. All mathematics teachers are identity workers, regardless of whether they consider themselves as such or not.”

Once you realize that the academics uncritically cited by the framework’s architects believe that teachers teaching math plainly and effectively reinforces oppressive power structures, its politicization and pedagogical ineffectiveness starts to make a whole lot of sense.

But remember, if you think that teaching math should be about helping students learn math—rather than inculcating leftwing ideology—then you’d probably be labeled a “conservative” by journalists, and you certainly oppose “teaching for social justice” and “equity.”

This article originally appeared in the AEIdeas blog and is reprinted with kind permission from the American Enterprise Institute.