National curriculum standards are the norm in many countries. However, only over the past three decades has the role of curriculum standards been firmly cemented into the educational vernacular in the United States. The influence of standards in educational policy has evolved due to increased accountability measures tied to standards and their associated assessments (e.g., the 2002 passage of the federal No Child Left Behind Act). Standards currently have considerable importance in outlining the mathematical content taught at particular grade levels, and due to the high stakes attached to the mandated assessments, these learning expectations carry considerable weight in determining what students have an opportunity to learn (Weiss, Pasley, Smith, Banilower, & Heck, 2003).

The effort to produce mathematics standards highlighted the varying opinions concerning the appropriate emphasis of specific content and process strands in the K-8 mathematics curriculum as well as the grade level(s) at which particular mathematics should be taught. This variation underscored the complex work of textbook publishers in the U.S., who create textbooks that attend to mathematical content as specified across multiple state standards.  The end-result was the exacerbation of the problem of textbook series that were “a mile wide and an inch deep” and that were poorly aligned with state standards (Dingman, 2007; McKnight et al., 1987; Schmidt, McKnight, & Raizen, 1997).

The variation across state standards also heightened calls for greater uniformity in the U.S. mathematics curriculum. These calls led to the 2009 establishment of the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI), under the direction of the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). Led by representatives from 48 states and the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, teams of mathematicians, mathematics educators, and school representatives created a set of standards that provide a shared view of important mathematics. The result is a 93-page document published in 2010 that outlines common mathematics standards for grades K-12 (Common Core State Standards for Mathematics, 2010).

The release of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM) has spurred many questions in the mathematics education community:  To what extent is the content articulated at specific grade levels in current state standards the same or different in CCSSM?  How will states alter their current mathematics standards to align with CCSSM?  How well do currently available textbooks align with CCSSM?  How do the Standards for Mathematical Practice in CCSSM correspond to previously recommended process standards (NCTM, 2000) and strands of mathematical proficiency (NRC, 2001)?  The presentations in this symposium aim to provide answers to these questions.

Session Organization

60 minutes

Each presentation will be allowed 15 minutes.

·         Reporting on findings from a comparative analysis of current K-8 state mathematics standards and the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM), the first presentation will address the grade placement and emphasis of topics across various content strands as well as reasoning processes and emphasis on technology.  The analysis utilized various methodological tools to compare and contrast CCSSM with the set of state standards to highlight similarities and differences between the two and investigate the implications for mathematics education stakeholders, including curriculum developers, teachers, and students.

·         The second presentation will focus on current work for a book to be published by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) that aims to address the eight Standards for Mathematical Practices (CCSSM, 2010), by linking the practices to the Process Standards from the 2000 NCTM Principles and Standards for School Mathematics and strands of mathematical proficiency specified in Adding it Up (NRC, 2001). The similarities and differences between the three documents will be presented, along with examples of vignettes to articulate the meaning of particular practices across grade levels.

·         The third set of presenters will discuss ongoing research organized around textbook analysis activities utilized in professional development and Masters-level courses with in-service teachers. They have focused their organization of activities in order to utilize CCSSM to map content identified in the standards across textbooks used by teachers in their school district. They will share their findings of the mathematical landscape of CCSSM content within various mathematics textbooks, as well as discussions with teachers about the process and other comments made throughout the courses of teachers engaging in textbook analyses. 

·         Based on the fact that “a state can add 15 percent of its own material to the standards,” (Gewertz, 2010), the final presentation will report the results of a study that examined states' modifications to CCSSM. The authors endeavor to answer the question: What mathematical content and/or processes, if any, are states adding to CCSSM?  A detailed comparison of CCSSM to newly published standards in adoption states was conducted and results, including trends across states, will be shared.

15 minutes

A researcher who is known for her work in curricular studies will respond to and highlight critical issues.

15 minutes

Discussion questions:

·         What areas of research focused on CCSSM are the most critical? 

·         How can the mathematics education community organize itself to tackle this work in a systematic way in order to support each other's work and not duplicate efforts?

·         What work has been done by the mathematics education community to develop an agreed-upon research agenda as CCSSM moves toward implementation?

·         What steps should be taken to ensure that essential information is collected to study the impact of CCSSM?

References

Dingman, S. W. (2007). Mathematics textbooks and state curriculum standards:  An analysis of the alignment between the written and intended curricula. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO.

Gewertz, C. (2010). States can't pick and choose among common standards. Education

            Week. Retrieved November 8, 2010 from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2010/02/states_cant_pick_and_choose_am.html.

McKnight, C. C., Crosswhite, F. J., Dossey, J. A., Kifer, E., Swafford, J. O., Travers, K.

            J., & Cooney, T. J. (1987). The underachieving curriculum:  Assessing U.S. school mathematics from an international perspective. Champaign, IL:  Stipes Publishing Company.

National Council for Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics.

National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., & Raizen, S. A. (1997). A splintered vision:  An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education. Boston:  Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Weiss, I. R., Pasley, J. D., Smith, P. S., Banilower, E. R., & Heck, D. J. (2003). Looking

            inside the classroom: A study of K-12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Chapel Hill, NC:  Horizon Research, Inc.