Overview: Many individuals, institutions, and governments assume the mathematics-for-all hypothesis: Every citizen’s mathematical understanding is vital for any nation’s economic prosperity and national security. The rapid globalization of marketplaces, the shift toward greater reliance on technology, and rise of the ‘knowledge economy’ all signal the increasing importance of quantitative abilities—supposedly. The casual assumption that a nation-state’s economic health is directly related to the level of mathematical competency of its citizens is also made for national security. A recent assertion by the National Mathematics Advisory Panel (2008) aptly demonstrates this belief: “Much of the commentary on mathematics [education] focuses on national economic competitiveness …. but it is yet more fundamental to recognize that the safety of the nation and the quality of life—not just the prosperity of the nation—are at issue” (p. xi).
Other government reports have made similar claims; the National Science and Technology Committee (2004) stated: “Education is the… foundation of a knowledge-based, innovation-driven economy.  For the U.S. to maintain its global economic leadership, we must ensure a continuous supply of highly trained mathematicians… as well as a scientifically, technically, and numerically literate population” (p. 15). Slaughter (1985) stated: “Almost all the reports assume education’s central purpose is to stimulate American economic growth and see a sound educational system as a prerequisite for a strong economy [and] enable the United States to compete successfully in a global marketplace” (p. 219). Many researchers, politicians, policymakers, and educational scholars express similar beliefs that “education is both the seed and flower of economic development” (Harbison & Myers, 1956, p. xi; see also Barro, 1991; Coughlan, 2007; Kennedy, 1963; Monyo & Hernes, 2003; Nelson & Phelps, 1966).
The purpose of this presentation is to examine the validity of the mathematics-for-all hypothesis through (a) an interpretive literature review (Eisenhart, 1985) of the empirical studies (i) linking education—especially mathematics education—to economic prosperity and national security and (ii) that investigate what mathematical knowledge is actually used in the workplace, and (b) developing theory for why mathematics is such a critical gatekeeper for individual access to education, careers, and prosperity but not for national economic development and national security.
Summary of key findings: This study found that the mathematics-for-all hypothesis is not empirically justifiable: Despite people’s ardent belief in the importance of enabling every citizen to learn mathematics, no consensus exists in the research literature about the impact of mathematics-for-all on economic development and national security. Despite continued belief in what Wolf (2002) calls “the great secular myth of our age” (p. x), the literature does not support the assumption that any particular form of education—including mathematics education—positively contributes to nation-state economic growth (Bracy, 2003; Kraak, 2003; Lewis, 1964; Wolf, 2004). Although some studies have tried to find support for this hypothesis, most subsequent studies have “conflicting conclusions” (Krueger & Lindahl, 2001, p. 1131). For example, Tieken (2008) reported: “The relationship between student achievement rankings on international assessments of reading, mathematics, and science and a nation’s future economic growth is untenable and not causal” (p. 1). Carter (2008) has suggested that “the reality of the new economy argues a small core of highly paid knowledge elites being serviced by the vast majority” (p. 621), rather than a need for all citizens to be mathematically competent. Moses and Cobb’s (2001) predication that by 2010 all jobs would need technologic skill has not been realized; Kraak (2003) admitted that: “The literature on globalization and the ‘knowledge economy’ exaggerates the extent… which high skills are the prerequisites for participation in the new economy…. Workers with intermediate and entry-level skills continue to form the largest percentile of employed populations worldwide” (p. v-vi, emphasis added). Reid and Brain (2004) summarized: “The evidence for education having a major role in economic growth is not convincing [yet] politicians and policy-makers sustain a profound belief in the latter value of education…. there is little evidence that it creates social benefits through generating economic growth” (p. 97).
Theoretical framework: I conclude the presentation by developing theory about why this assumption about mathematics-for-all has become such a resonating belief among policymakers, the press, and pedagogues. My framework separates the impact of mathematics education for the individual from that of the larger society—the literature does recognize that mathematical understanding is becoming ever more important for individuals (if these individuals wish to advance up the education and career ladders) because basic mathematical competency—at least in traditional forms—is a powerful gatekeeper. However, the literature does not support the assumption that all citizens need to be mathematically literate in order for a nation-state to prosper economically. I draw on theories of complex systems to suggest why the benefits of mathematics learning at the individual level do not scale up to the national level (Anderson, 1972). I describe how efforts to tailor education to regional needs (1) are supported by empirical studies and (2) should supplant what Reid and Brain (2004) call “the overblown rhetoric… concerning the impact of the ‘knowledge economy’” (p. 97).
Educational significance: Without sound understanding of what forms of mathematics education matter for individual and national development, implementation of compulsory policies could be counterproductive. Because the assumptions about the role of mathematics and quantitative reasoning in technological use and development—so foundational for institutional and governmental policy—are not grounded in sound empirical research (Kraak, 2003; Krueger & Lindahl, 2001; Reid & Brain, 2004; Wolf, 2004), this study holds important implications for educational scholarship and policy, especially in light of the current and popular embrace of common core standards. Results of this study can re-focus efforts to enable children’s learning of mathematics with understanding (to broaden their education and career options).
The first 10 minutes of the presentation will focus on reviewing the study and its findings, with five minutes dedicated to theoretical implications and educational significance. Because this study questions traditional forms of mathematics learning and assessment, participants will be able to reconsider their beliefs about the purposes of mathematics education and how those goals are best reached in contemporary settings.