Common Core State Standards Algebra

One issue of concern for the California K-12 educators is that California currently requires students to pass Algebra 1 in order to earn a high school diploma. The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) version of Algebra 1 includes topics not traditionally associated with Algebra 1, for instance, exponential functions and some statistics.

Unless new legislation addresses this change in content, the adoption of the CCSS automatically raises the California high school graduation requirement.

A related issue more directly linked to California Community Colleges (CCCs) is that the CCSS has created a higher level Algebra 2. If community college intermediate algebra is to align with high school Algebra 2, then we will be raising our math requirement for the AA degree and for the prerequisite for transfer level math.

And the California Community College Student Success Task Force calls for better alignment:

"Aligning K-12 and community colleges standards for college and career readiness is a long-term goal that will require a significant investment of time and energy that the Task Force believes will pay off by streamlining student transition to college and reducing the academic deficiencies of entering students...

"Recommendation 1.1
"Community Colleges will collaborate with K-12 education to jointly develop new common standards for college and career readiness that are aligned with high school exit standards.

"The Task Force recommends that the community college system closely collaborate with the SBE and Superintendent of Public Instruction to define standards for college and career readiness as California implements the K-12 Common Core State Standards and engages with the national SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium to determine the appropriate means for measuring these standards. Doing so would reduce the number of students needing remediation, help ensure that students who graduate from high school meeting 12th grade-level standards are ready for college-level work, and encourage more students to achieve those standards by clearly defining college and career expectations."

I don't know who speaks for CCCs in the collaboration with the State Board of Education and Superintendent of Public Instruction.  But I do think it likely that one strategy to bring better alignment will be to use the Smarter Balanced assessments at grade 11 as placement instruments at the community colleges.  The other consortium creating CCSS assessments, PARCC, already has agreement among its adopting states to use its assessments for college placement.  (See, for example, http://bit.ly/QYVjUF.)

Student struggle is a good thing!

NPR recently interviewed UCLA researcher Jim Stigler about the differences between how the US and other cultures view student struggle.

In the US, we typically attribute academic success to intelligence, and often give praise by admiring how smart someone is. In many east Asian cultures, success is attributed to continued effort, and children are praised for their persistence to overcome obstacles.

A possible consequence is that US children who do not have immediate success at a task will abandon the effort--their intelligence was evidently insufficient.  And US education authorities view student struggle as an indicator that something is wrong--the term "struggling student" is used to designate a student who requires some intervention, rather than to describe a student experiencing an essential stage of deep understanding.

Asian cultures often embrace student struggle as a key indicator of future success.  And it actually should be embraced by educators following the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics, which has as its first standard of Mathematical Practices:

1. Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them.

Praising intelligence rather than effort also reinforces a fixed mindset, which can limit a person's successes, whereas praising effort promotes the development of a growth mindset. Carol Dweck has fascinating data on how mindsets affect learning and how mindsets can be changed.

 

Mathematical Practices

The Common Core State Standards list Standards for Mathematical Practice at each grade level.  These practices are

Mathematical Practices

1.     Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them.

2.     Reason abstractly and quantitatively.

3.     Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others.

4.     Model with mathematics.

5.     Use appropriate tools strategically.

6.     Attend to precision.

7.     Look for and make use of structure.

8.     Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning.

These same eight expectations are listed in the descriptions for every grade level and for every advanced (a.k.a. high school) course.  But carrying out the Mathematical Practices will look different at different grade levels.

The practices that may require the most clarification are probably #4 (Model with mathematics), #7 (Look for and make use of structure) and #8 (Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning).

Modeling with mathematics typically involves using and perhaps even creating mathematical objects (such as algebraic expressions, equations, inequalities, graphs, etc.) to capture key aspects of a situation to be explored.  A kindergartner might use 2+3 to represent the number of people involved if two people are joined by 3 more; a sixth grader might describe  a relationship between the numbers of tables to chairs in a room by the ratio 1:4; an Algebra I student might use the expression 10x to represent the value (in cents) of x dimes.

But not all word problems involve mathematical modeling.  It is not mathematical modeling to use a contrived algebraic expression such as a quadratic expression obtained by curve-fitting bi-variate data without any plausible a priori reason for believing that the two variables should be related quadratically.

Mathematical Practice #7, seeking  and using structure, is key to both pure and applied mathematics.  A first-grader begins to recognize that an addition fact such as 2+3=5 carries with it a family of related arithmetic facts, e.g., 3+2=5, 5-2=3, 5-3=2, etc. ; a seventh-grader can see that because a+0.05a = 1.05a, increasing a quantity by 5% is equivalent to scaling the quantity by 1.05; a geometry student recognizes and introduces structure by adding an auxiliary line to a geometric diagram.  Mathematical Practice #7 is definitely not about memorizing or plugging into formulas--both practices,  when applied inappropriately, can allow students to ignore the underlying structure .

I personally need further explanation of Mathematical Practice #8.  Here is how it's first described in the CCSS:

Mathematically proficient students notice if calculations are repeated, and look both for general methods and for shortcuts. Upper elementary students might notice when dividing 25 by 11 that they are repeating the same calculations over and over again, and conclude they have a repeating decimal. By paying attention to the calculation of slope as they repeatedly check whether points are on the line through (1, 2) with slope 3, middle school students might abstract the equation \( \frac {y – 2}{x – 1} = 3\) . Noticing the regularity in the way terms cancel when expanding (x – 1)(x + 1), (x – 1)(x^2 + x + 1), and (x – 1)(x^3 + x^2 + x + 1) might lead them to the general formula for the sum of a geometric series. As they work to solve a problem, mathematically proficient students maintain oversight of the process, while attending to the details. They continually evaluate the reasonableness of their intermediate results.

The phrase "repeated reasoning" presumably refers to the "R" in Guershon Harel's DNR. Some of Harel's work is listed in the mathematics CCSS references, but there do not appear to be any direct attributions cited.

CCSS and Community College Math Programs

We may need a complete redesign of the developmental math program in US two-year colleges.

My campus currently uses a placement test (Mathematics Diagnostic Test Project) to determine if students are ready for transfer level courses (math for elementary school teachers, stats, trig, precalculus, calculus)  or what remedial course (arithmetic, prealgebra, elementary algebra, intermediate algebra) they should take.

But the Common Core State Standards for mathematics will have high school students studying mathematics organized in a fashion that does not align with our existing math courses.

California is one of the 45 states that have formally adopted the CCSS for mathematics, and I am on a recently appointed state committee whose charge is to align California’s math standards (a.k.a. the California Framework) with the CCSS.

One of the main reasons that I applied to be on the Mathematics Curriculum Framework and Evaluation Criteria Committee (MCFCC) was to better familiarize myself with what is to be taught in California's K-12 schools.  (Another reason was to lose myself in abbreviations:  SBE for State Board of Education, CDE for California Department of Education, IQC for Instructional Quality Commission, the body that forwarded my name to the SBE for approval to serve on the MFCC to align the CF with the CCSS.)

The CCSS specify a consensus of what math is required for students to be college or career ready.  The standards are grouped into six conceptual categories:  Number and Quantity, Algebra, Functions, Modeling, Geometry, and Statistics and Probability.  (There are separately eight standards for mathematical practice that go across all grade levels.)

The CCSS differ significantly from what is typically required for graduation in most American high schools today.  For example, the treatment of statistics and probability includes not only descriptive statistics but also conditional probability, inference, decisions based on probability, and rules of  probability. 

The CCSS include not only right-triangle trigonometry but also trig functions of a real variable, to be used in modeling periodic behavior.  Thus trig spans the geometry, algebra, and function categories.

The CCSS gives math standards for high school without specifying courses or order of topics.  But evidently the introduction of functions includes an emphasis on (linear and) exponential functions with domains restricted to a subset of the integers--sequences are explicitly studied as functions.

California community colleges do not require a high school diploma for admission.  A student who masters the first CCSS high school math course will already have compared exponential functions with linear functions and solved equations both algebraically and graphically. The student will have had explicit instruction on descriptive statistics.  The student may have worked with constructions and transformations in the plane and proved simple geometric theorems algebraically but not yet worked with polynomials (and specifically not with quadratic functions or quadratic equations).

How will our placement system advise this student?

One of the recommendations  of California's Student SuccessTask Force is for better alignment between high school and college curricula.  With the CCSS adopted across states, it looks as if most community colleges will need to make adjustments to their way of placing and educating their math students.

MathFest 2012 and Common Core State Standards in Math

Andrew Hacker’s article "Is Algebra Necessary?" in the New York Times was a hot topic last week and mentioned by several presenters at the 2012 MathFest session "What Mathematics Should Every Citizen Know?".  The panelists, Bil lMcCallum, Lynn Steen, Hyman Bass, Joseph Malkevitch, and co-organizer Sol Garfunkel, were actually reacting to the Core Curriculum State Standards in mathematics.

Mathematicians and math educators agree that we are not  currently doing the best job of teaching algebra.  But unlike Hacker, the math community believes the appropriate strategy is to improve algebra instruction, not to abandon it to all but an elite few pupils.

On the other hand, the speakers on the panel, although quite civil with each other, clearly had disagreements about the best strategy to improve math education in the US.

McCallum, who was the lead mathematician in the development of the CCSS, emphasized the benefits of having commonality across states.  Having a set of standards that could be adopted by 45 of the 50 states (so far) required compromises, but the benefits accrue not only to pupils and teachers in our mobile society, but to all who do business with textbook publishers who currently provide materials for the multitude of different curricula.

Steen gave some numbers showing the dismal success of preparing US students for STEM, but argued that we should improve rather than remove algebra from the curriculum.  He favors a modeling-based approach and avoidance of common assessments.  When asked how to accomplish his recommendations, he cheerfully remarked that he doesn't need to worry about that now that he's retired.

Bass focused on pedagogy rather than curriculum as the key to improving math education.  Student learning is increased when the instructor employs appropriate classroom strategies.

Malkevitch promotes widening the curriculum.  He argued that we need to show many ways that mathematics impinges on daily lives.  He gave combinatorial graphs and fair choice algorithms as examples of mathematical topics that are new and accessible to very young children.

Garfunkel believes that the entire K-12 mathematics curriculum should be centered on modeling. He echoed Malkevitch's suggestions that the US curriculum needs to be widened, and said that Bill Schmidt had paid an advertising agency to create the phrase "a mile wide and an inch deep" that is used to characterize the US K-12 curriculum following the disappointing ranking of the US high school students in the Third International Mathematics and Science Study.