Higher Education Alignment with the Common Core

The August 29, 2014 letter from California's higher education top administrators  announced that "the a-g requirements for CSU and UC admission, specifically areas ‘b’ (English) and ‘c’ (Mathematics), have been updated to align with the Common Core standards."

How that alignment will look is not specified in the letter.

As of today (9/9/14), the UC Mathematics ("c") subject requirements listed publicly do not show alignment with the Common Core State Standards. Instead, they still show expectations of California standards that existed before the CCSSM. For example, in item 2 of Course requirements, "The content for these courses will usually be drawn from the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics [PDF]. While these standards can be a useful guide, coverage of all items in the standards is not necessary for the specific purpose of meeting the 'c' subject requirement....The ICAS Statement of Competencies in Mathematics can provide guidance in selecting topics that require in-depth study." [Emphasis mine.]

A concern for California community colleges is that the alignment to the CCSSM might become what was proposed by the UC Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools (BOARS) in 2013. In July, BOARS wrote that “… the basic mathematics of the CCSSM can appropriately be used to define the minimal level of mathematical competence that all incoming UC students should demonstrate...As such, BOARS expects that the Transferable Course Agreement Guidelines will be rewritten to clarify that the prerequisite mathematics for transferable courses should align with the college-ready content standards of the CCSSM.”

BOARS clarified (December 2013) that “… going forward, all students must complete the basic mathematics defined by the college-ready standards of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM) prior to enrolling in a UC-transferable college mathematics or statistics course.”

The college-ready standards of the CCSSM are simply all the non-plus standards. As written in the CCSSM, “The higher mathematics standards specify the mathematics that all students should study in order to be college and career ready. Additional mathematics that students should learn in preparation for advanced courses, such as calculus, advanced statistics, or discrete mathematics, is indicated by a plus symbol (+). All standards without a (+) symbol should be in the common mathematics curriculum for all college and career ready students.” [Emphasis mine]

Thus BOARS has twice stated that it expects all UC students to have all the CCSSM non-plus standards as prerequisite to any course that could receive UC credit.

But what undermines BOARS's credibility is its assessment of how the ICAS statement of competencies and the CCSSM content standards compare. In the opening paragraph of the BOARS July letter: "The most recent version of the ICAS mathematical competency statement makes clear the close alignment between it and the CCSSM. Both define the mathematics that all students should study in order to be college ready." [Emphasis mine.]

In actuality, what ICAS considers essential math content for all students is only a small subset of what the CCSSM specify as necessary. The ICAS document lists four sets of possible high school math topics. The first is Part 1: Essential areas of focus for all entering college students. Appendix B of the ICAS document explicitly shows how the CCSSM include not only the math topics of Part 1 but also the math topics of Parts 2, 3, and 4, which are areas of focus for students in quantitative majors or are areas of focus considered desirable but not essential.

What Math is Needed by All?

The (California version of the) Common Core State Standards in mathematics purport to be what all students need to be college and career ready.

The quantifier "all" in this context indicates that the math content should be the intersection (over all students) of math a student needs to be ready to begin college (or begin a career). Critics of the CCSSM who decry that the standards are not enough to prepare a student for an elite university such as Stanford are missing the point. The intent of the CCSS was never to include the union (over all students) of the math that a student needs to succeed in college. (And if the CCSS could provide all the math and English Language Arts that Stanford students need, then Stanford would not deserve its status as an elite school.)

And what do all students need? In 2013, the National Center on Education and the Economy released a study What Does It Really Mean to Be College and Work Ready?, reporting on both mathematics and English literacy. The report says, "Mastery of Algebra II is widely thought to be a prerequisite for success in college and careers. Our research shows that that is not so... Based on our data, one cannot make the case that high school graduates must be proficient in Algebra II to be ready for college and careers."

California's Intersegmental Committee of the Academic Senates (ICAS) represents the faculty academic senates of the three CA systems of higher education: the University of California (UC), the California State University (CSU), and the California Community College (CCC) system. The ICAS Statement on Competencies in Mathematics Expected of Entering College Students, revised in 2013, describes a number of mathematical topics that are or could be taught in high schools.

The ICAS competency statement describes mathematical subject matter in four categories: Part 1: Essential areas of focus for all entering college students, Part 2: Desirable areas of focus for all entering college students, Part 3: Essential areas of focus for students in quantitative majors, and Part 4: Desirable areas of focus for students in quantitative majors.

The mathematics that the CCSSM describe as what all students need should presumably match with what the ICAS statement describes as "essential" and lists in Part 1. But although the UC Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools (BOARS) states there is "close alignment" between the CCSS and the ICAS statement, the ICAS statement makes clear that there are many CCSS that are not "essential" but rather merely desirable or for only some students. Appendix B of the ICAS statement explicitly shows where Part 2, 3, and 4 areas of math are found in the CCSS (and NCTM standards).

And the Interim Environmental Scan Report to The Common Assessment Initiative Steering Committee has in  Appendix B a Table that shows a number of CCSS that do not occur at all in the ICAS statement.

Here are examples of CCSSM topics that might surprise some community college math faculty, especially those who believe that intermediate algebra as currently taught will be sufficient to cover all the CCSSM.

• Probability:  sample spaces, independent events, conditional probability, permutations and combinations; analyzing decisions and strategies using probability
• Statistics: assessing the fit of a function by plotting and analyzing residuals; interpreting the correlation coefficient of a linear model in context; normal distributions, random samples, estimating population parameters, simulations, using probability to make decisions
• Transformational geometry: congruence defined in terms of rigid motion; similarity defined in terms of dilations and rigid motions
• Trigonometry: trig ratios, special angles, 6 trig functions of real numbers; modeling periodic phenomena, proof and use of the Pythagorean trig identity \( \cos^2 \theta + \sin^2 \theta = 1 \)

Schizophrenic Common Core Supporter

Back in 2012 Sol Garfunkel wrote "I feel like a schizophrenic. I truly think that the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM) are a disaster...So why do I feel like a schizophrenic? Because I am at the same time working to make the implementation of the CCSSM be as effective as possible!"

As mathematician Keith Devlin has emphasized, the heart of the CCSSM is the set of 8  standards of Mathematical Practice:

• MP1. Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them.
• MP2. Reason abstractly and quantitatively.
• MP3. Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others.
• MP4. Model with mathematics.
• MP5. Use appropriate tools strategically.
• MP6. Attend to precision.
• MP7. Look for and make use of structure.
• MP8. Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning.

It would be hard to imagine that any mathematician or math educator would not applaud these standards. And these standards, the key to the CCSSM and presented at the start of each set of grade level standards, are rarely if ever mentioned in the attacks on the CCSSM.

Much of the resistance to the CCSS is political: the Democratic President of the United States has endorsed the CCSS, so there is automatic opposition from the Tea Party, Republicans, and Libertarians, who argue that the CCSS is a federal program. But although President Obama is giving incentives for states to adopt the CCSS, the standards are the result of 48 state governors and secretaries of education agreeing to cooperate to create educational standards that would be consistent across state lines.

The resistance from the classroom teachers is understandable because they will be held accountable to how their students will do on the CCSS standardized testing. But the standardized testing that will be used is not part of the CCSS but rather is being created by SBAC or PARCC, consortia created to write CCSS assessments. That is, although the news media report teacher opposition to the CCSS, the teachers' actual objection is to the assessments and how they will be used.

The widely seen mocking and vilification of CCSS lessons by the public also confuse the CCSS with methods for testing students for mathematical proficiency. The CCSS explicitly require that students master the standard algorithms that critics mistakenly say are "real math" and missing from the CCSS. But significantly, the CCSS also require (MP1) that students can make sense of the mathematical tasks they are performing.

I think the CCSSM grossly overshoot the mark when trying to specify the math that all students need to be college and career ready. But like Sol Garfunkel, I think we should simultaneously embrace the CCSS and work to improve them.

Common Core Goes to College

The New America Foundation’s position paper by Lindsey Tepe gives recommendations for how higher education can support the Common Core State Standards. However, this paper and related articles in the Chronicle  and Hechinger Report  miss the most important way for higher education to support the CCSS, namely, to work to repair or ameliorate the existing flaws in the CCSS. 

An implicit assumption in Tepe's paper is that the CCSS have successfully captured what all students need to be college and career ready. If the assumption is false, the paper is advocating moves to change higher education to accommodate inappropriate standards, changes that could harm students and impede their paths to college degrees.

The CCSS have missed the mark at what is necessary for all students to succeed in college.

Many of the non-plus CCSS are currently introduced to students in credit-bearing courses of baccalaureate granting institutions. That is, the CCSS overshoots what is needed to be ready for college and includes topics that are part of what some college students need to learn while in college.

The intent of the CCSS was to help get students college (and career) ready. It is an abuse of the CCSS to use those standards as an opportunity for colleges and universities to raise admissions and/or degree requirements, and that abuse will work against the goal of giving more students the opportunity to earn college degrees.

More on Alternative Pathways and transferability in California

California's adoption of the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics (CCSSM) helps to shape the expectations of universities regarding the mathematical background of their incoming students.

The July 2013 statement (http://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/committees/boars/BOARSStatementonMathforAllStudentsJuly2013.pdf) from the University of California's Boards of Admissions & Relations with Schools (BOARS) comments that most California Community Colleges (CCCs) continue to use "traditional Intermediate Algebra (i.e., Intermediate Algebras as defined prior to CCSSM implementation)" as prerequisite to a transferable mathematics course.

The BOARS statement continues, "Specifying that transferable courses must have at least Intermediate Algebra as a prerequisite is not fully consistent with the use of the basic mathematics of the CCSSM as a measure of college readiness...Requiring that all prospective transfer students pass the current version of Intermediate Algebra would be asking more of them than UC will ask of students entering as freshmen who have completed CCSSM-aligned high school math courses. As such, BOARS expects that the Transferable Course Agreement Guidelines will be rewritten to clarify that the prerequisite mathematics for transferable courses should align with the college-ready content standards of the CCSSM."

Meanwhile, the Academic Senate of California Community Colleges (ASCCC) has endorsed the CCSSM, but has no formal position on alternative pathways.  A Fall 2012 resolution to support innovations to improve success in under-prepared non-STEM pathways was referred to the executive committee.  However, former ASCCC president Ian Walton did publish in the ASCCC Rostrum an opinion (http://asccc.org/content/alternatives-traditional-intermediate-algebra) that "The wide range of conversations demonstrates that a strong case can be made for the exploration and implementation of alternative preparations for transfer level math courses that differ from the content of the traditional intermediate algebra course."

Contradictory mandates to community colleges

A goal of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) is to prepare students to be college and career ready.  That goal is also part of the mission of community colleges.  There has been considerable discussion regarding how  the CCSS might affect students' chances for getting into college, but scant discussion about how community colleges fit into the implementation of the CCSS.

Community Colleges might be assumed to have a distorted view of what it means to be college or career ready.  After all, they typically use the word "college" when naming themselves, yet eligibility to become a community college student does not require any minimum GPA nor any minimum score or ranking in any test.  It is sometimes said that the University of California serves the top 12.5% of California high school graduates, the California State University system the top 33.3%, and the California Community Colleges serve the top 100%.  But this is too limiting--a high school diploma is not a requirement for enrollment at any California Community College.

So at community colleges, we may worry less about "college ready" but rather focus on "transfer ready".  UCLA and CSUN are my school's two nearest public universities, and both report that our transfer students perform slightly better than their native students.  So there is evidence that community colleges are not grossly underestimating what is needed to be transfer ready.

California Community Colleges are presented with two conflicting mandates .   Community colleges  are encouraged 1) to align with K-12 standards for college and career readiness (according to the California Community College  Student Success Task Force  http://bit.ly/xOC5aK), and 2)  to provide alternative pathways to transfer (according to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching  http://bit.ly/y1EZhX, the Charles A. Dana Center  http://www.utdanacenter.org/mathways/, etc.).

Explicitly, a consortium of the Charles A. Dana Center, Complete College America, Inc., Education Commission of the States, and Jobs for the Future, asks community colleges to provide a  "fundamentally new approach for ensuring that all students are ready for and can successfully complete college-level work that leads to a postsecondary credential of value.

"...The content in required gateway courses should align with a student’s academic program of study — particularly in math... Institutions need to focus on getting students into the right math and the right English." (from "Core Principles for Transforming Remedial Education: A Joint Statement" : http://bit.ly/TPqqCp)

The researcher at my institution estimated that 75% of our students interested in transfer are in disciplines that require no mathematics beyond an introductory statistics class to earn a baccalaureate degree at CSUN.  Evidently there are many students who can earn baccalaureate degrees without taking  single course from the mathematics department of any 4-year school.

The California Community College Success Network (3CSN.org), the Carnegie Foundation, the Dana Center, and the Student Success Task Force all recommend removing  curricular requirements  that act as barriers rather than aids to program completion.  The SSTF report contends, "Improved student support structures and better alignment of curriculum with student needs will increase success rates in transfer, basic skills, and career technical/workforce programs." [emphasis added]

The existing and proposed curricula of alternative pathways for non-STEM students omit many topics of intermediate algebra.

On the other hand, neither the University of California nor the California State University accepts a math or statistics course to meet  math transfer requirements unless that course has intermediate algebra as a prerequisite. 

If aligning with the CCSS implies that "intermediate algebra" should mean CCSS Algebra 2 (which includes circular trig and some inferential statistics), then the math requirements for transfer math courses will increase significantly.

And because intermediate algebra is the California Community College minimum math requirement for an associate's degree, the requirement for an AA degree will also increase simultaneously.

It is impossible for community colleges to remove unnecessary but currently required topics (for transfer to non-STEM disciplines) while simultaneously not merely maintaining but augmenting that list of required topics for all students.

Alternative Pathways vs Common Core State Standards

A primary goal of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) is to provide a curriculum to ensure that all high school graduates are college and career ready. The CCSS  math topics through grade 11 include not only all of the topics of the traditional U.S. Algebra 1-Geometry-Algebra 2 sequence, but also topics typically taught in courses named trigonometry and statistics.

Alternative pathways provide a means for non-STEM (i.e., non- Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) students to transfer from a two-year college to a four-year institution and earn a bachelor's degree without needing to show mastery of traditional intermediate algebra topics. The promotion of alternative pathways challenges the premise that the CCSS for math are needed for all students to be college ready.

The common goal of both alternative pathways and the CCSS is to improve U.S. education.

 "Core Principles for Transforming Remedial Education: A Joint Statement" from the Charles A. Dana Center, Complete College America, Inc., Education Commission of the States, and Jobs for the Future, calls for revamping the two-year college remediation structure.  The paper lists seven Core Principals for a "fundamentally new approach for ensuring that all students are ready for and can successfully complete college-level work that leads to a postsecondary credential of value.

"...Principle 2. The content in required gateway courses should align with a student’s academic program of study — particularly in math.

"Gateway courses provide a foundation for a program of study, and students should expect that the skills they develop in gateway courses are relevant to their chosen program. On many campuses, remedial education is constructed as single curricular pathways into gateway math or English courses.

"The curricular pathways often include content that is not essential for students to be successful in their chosen program of study. Consequently, many students are tripped up in their pursuit of a credential while studying content that they do not need. Institutions need to focus on getting students into the right math and the right English.

"This issue is of particular concern in mathematics, which is generally considered the most significant barrier to college success for remedial education students. At many campuses, remedial math is geared toward student preparation for college algebra. However for many programs of study, college algebra should not be a required gateway course when a course in statistics or quantitative literacy would be more appropriate….

"...One final note: Postsecondary leaders must work closely with K–12, adult basic education, and other training systems to reduce the need for remediation before students enroll in their institutions.  Postsecondary institutions should leverage the Common Core State Standards by working with K–12 schools to improve the skills of their students before they graduate from high school. Early assessment of students in high school, using existing placement exams and eventually the Common Core college and career readiness assessments, which lead to customized academic skill development during the senior year, should be a priority for states. Similar strategies should be employed in adult basic education and English as a second language programs."

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.