Advertisement

Potential Impact of the Common Core Mathematics Standards on the American Curriculum

Chapter
Part of the Advances in Mathematics Education book series (AME)

Abstract

In June of 2010, the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics (CCSSM) were introduced in the U.S. Long before the advent of the CCSSM, American schools had a de facto national mathematics curriculum, namely, the curriculum dictated by school mathematics textbooks. While there are some formal differences among these books, the underlying mathematics is quite similar throughout. The resulting curriculum distorts mathematics in the sense that it often withholds precise definitions and logical reasoning, fails to point out interconnections between major topics such as whole numbers and fractions, and employs ambiguous language that ultimately leads to widespread non-learning. The CCSSM make a conscientious attempt to address many of these problems and, in the process, raise the demand on teachers’ content knowledge for a successful implementation of these standards. This article examines, strictly from an American perspective, some of the mathematical issues (primarily in grades 4–12) that arise during the transition from the de facto curriculum to the curriculum envisioned by the CCSSM. Although the CCSSM would seem to be strictly an American concern, these mathematical issues transcend national boundaries because there are very few deviations in the K-12 curriculum across nations (for the K-8 curriculum, see p. 3-31 to p. 3-33 of National Mathematics Advisory Panel 2008).

Keywords

Common Core Standards Curriculum Content knowledge Definition Reasoning 

Notes

Acknowledgement

I am grateful to Larry Francis for his corrections and useful suggestions.

References

  1. Andrews, A. G., et al. (2002). Harcourt math. Grade 5. Grade 6. (California edition). Orlando: Harcourt. Google Scholar
  2. Bell, M., et al. (2008). California everyday mathematics. Teachers’ lesson guide. Grade 4. Chicago: McGraw Hill/Wright Group. Google Scholar
  3. Bellman, A. E., et al. (2007). Prentice Hall mathematics. Algebra 1. Boston: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, J., et al. (2001). Scott Foresman California mathematics. Grade 4. Grade 5. Glenview: Scott Foresman. Google Scholar
  5. Carmichael, S. B., Wilson, W. S., Porter-Magee, K., & Martino, G. (2010). The state of state standards—and the common core—in 2010. Washington: Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Retrieved from http://www.edexcellence.net/publications/the-state-of-state-of-standards-and-the-common-core-in-2010.html. Google Scholar
  6. CME project: algebra 1. (2009). Boston: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Google Scholar
  7. Collins, W., et al. (1998). Glencoe algebra I. New York: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill. Google Scholar
  8. Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (2010). Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards/mathematics.
  9. Davison, D. M., Landau, M. S., McCracken, L., & Thompson, L. (2001). Pre-algebra. California edition. Needham: Prentice Hall. Google Scholar
  10. Eicholz, R. E., et al. (1995). Addison-Wesley mathematics. Grade 7. Grade 8. Menlo Park: Addison Wesley. Google Scholar
  11. Fuson, K. C. (2006). Teacher’s edition: Houghton-Mifflin math expressions. Grade 5. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Google Scholar
  12. Gray, L. F. (undated). A sample list of errors in core plus materials. Retrieved from http://www.math.umn.edu/~gray/errors.html.
  13. Hoffer, A. R., Koss, R., et al. (1998). Focus on advanced algebra. Menlo Park: Addison Wesley. Google Scholar
  14. Holliday, B., et al. (2008). Glencoe McGraw-Hill algebra 2. New York: McGraw Hill. Google Scholar
  15. Institute for Research on Mathematics and Science Education (2010). Research in mathematics education: where do we go from here? Retrieved from http://irmse.msu.edu/2010/11/16/washington-d-c-kick-off-event/irmse-proceedings-mathematics-ed/.
  16. Kliman, M., Russell, S. J., Turney, C., & Murray, M. (2006). Investigations in number, data, and space in grade 5: building on numbers you know. Glenview: Scott Foresman. Google Scholar
  17. Kodaira, K. (Ed.) (1992). Japanese grade 7 mathematics. Japanese grade 8 mathematics. Japanese grade 9 mathematics. Chicago: University of Chicago. Google Scholar
  18. Kodaira, K. (Ed.) (1996). Mathematics 1. Providence: American Mathematical Society. Google Scholar
  19. Kodaira, K. (Ed.) (1997). Mathematics 2. Providence: American Mathematical Society. Google Scholar
  20. Lamon, S. J. (1999). Teaching fractions and ratios for understanding. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  21. Lappan, G., et al. (1998a). Connected mathematics: bits and pieces I and II. Menlo Park: Dale Seymour. Google Scholar
  22. Lappan, G., et al. (1998b). Connected mathematics: stretching and shrinking. Menlo Park: Dale Seymour. Google Scholar
  23. Larson, R., et al. (1999). Passport to algebra and geometry. Evanston: McDougall Littell. Google Scholar
  24. Larson, R., et al. (2007). McDougall Littell algebra 1. Evanston: McDougall Littell. Google Scholar
  25. Mathematics framework for California public schools (2006). Sacramento: California Department of Education. Google Scholar
  26. Murdock, J., Kamischke, E., & Kamischke, E. (1998). Advanced algebra through data exploration. Berkeley: Key Curriculum Press. Google Scholar
  27. National Assessment of Educational Progress (undated). NAEP questions tool: mathematics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/itmrlsx/search.aspx?subject=mathematics.
  28. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston: Author. Google Scholar
  29. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: Author. Google Scholar
  30. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2006). Curriculum focal points. Reston: Author. Google Scholar
  31. National Mathematics Advisory Panel (2008). Foundations for success: reports of the task groups and sub-committees. Washington: U.S. Department of Education. http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/reports.html. Google Scholar
  32. National Research Council (2001). Adding it up. Washington: National Academy Press. Google Scholar
  33. Postelnicu, V., & Greenes, C. (2012). Do teachers know what their students know? National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics Newsletter, 42(3), 14–15. Google Scholar
  34. Usiskin, Z., et al. (1998). UCSMP transition mathematics (2nd ed.). Glenview: Scott Foresman Addison Wesley. Google Scholar
  35. Van de Walle, J. A. (1998). Elementary and middle school mathematics. New York: Addison Wesley Longman. Google Scholar
  36. Wu, H. (2000). Review of the interactive mathematics program (IMP). Retrieved from http://math.berkeley.edu/~wu/IMP2.pdf.
  37. Wu, H. (2010a). Pre-algebra. Retrieved from http://math.berkeley.edu/~wu/Pre-Algebra.pdf.
  38. Wu, H. (2010b). Introduction to school algebra. Retrieved from http://math.berkeley.edu/~wu/Algebrasummary.pdf.
  39. Wu, H. (2011a). Professional development and textbook school mathematics. Retrieved from http://math.berkeley.edu/~wu/AMS_COE_2011.pdf.
  40. Wu, H. (2011b). Understanding numbers in elementary school mathematics. Providence: American Mathematical Society. Google Scholar
  41. Wu, H. (2011c). Phoenix rising. Bringing the common core state mathematics standards to life. American Educator, 35(3), 3–13. Also: http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/fall2011/Wu.pdf. Google Scholar
  42. Wu, H. (2011d). Teaching fractions according to the common core standards. Retrieved from http://math.berkeley.edu/~wu/CCSS-Fractions.pdf.
  43. Wu, H. (2012). Teaching geometry according to the common core standards. Retrieved from http://math.berkeley.edu/~wu/Progressions_Geometry.pdf.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics #3840University of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations