Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on
LinkedIn
+

BOSTON – National mathematics standards adopted by 45 states and the District of Columbia that supporters say are designed to make high school graduates “college- and career-ready” and improve the critical science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) pipeline do not prepare students to study STEM or even be admitted to a selective four-year college, according to a new study published by Pioneer Institute.

Lowering the Bar: How Common Core Math Fails to Prepare High School Students for STEM

“With the exception of a few standards in trigonometry, the math standards end after Algebra II,” said James Milgram, professor of mathematics emeritus at Stanford University. “They include no precalculus or calculus.” Professor Milgram co-authored “Lowering the Bar: How Common Core Math Fails to Prepare High School Students for STEM” with Sandra Stotsky, professor of education emerita at the University of Arkansas.

U.S. government data show that only one out of every 50 prospective STEM majors who begin their undergraduate math coursework at the precalculus level or lower will earn a bachelor’s degree in a STEM area. Moreover, students whose last high school math course was Algebra II or lower have less than a 40 percent chance of earning any kind of four-year college degree.

At a 2010 meeting of Massachusetts’ Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Professor Jason Zimba, a lead writer of the math standards, said the standards, known as Common Core, prepare students “for the colleges most kids go to, but not for the college most parents aspire to,” and added that the standards are “not for selective colleges.”

In 2010, William McCallum, another lead writer of Common Core’s math standards, said “The overall standards would not be too high, certainly not in comparison [to] other nations, including East Asia, where math education excels.”

The U.S. Department of Education’s competitive grant program, Race to the Top, requires states to place students admitted by their public colleges and universities into credit-bearing (non-remedial) mathematics (and English) courses if they have passed a Common Core-based “college readiness” test. The authors argue that selective public colleges and universities will likely have to lower the level of their introductory math courses to avoid unacceptably high failure rates.

“It’s astonishing that 46 boards and departments of education adopted Common Core’s ‘college- and career-ready’ standards without asking the faculty who teach math at their own higher education institutions to do an analysis of Common Core’s definition of college readiness,” Stotsky said.

Professors Milgram and Stotsky were members of Common Core’s validation committee, which was charged with reviewing each successive draft of the standards, but they both refused to sign off on the academic quality of the national standards.

Pioneer’s comprehensive research on Common Core national education standards includes: Common Core Standards Still Don’t Make the Grade; The Road to a National Curriculum: The Legal Aspects of the Common Core Standards, Race to the Top, and Conditional Waivers; National Cost of Aligning States and Localities to the Common Core Standards, and A Republic of Republics: How Common Core Undermines State and Local Autonomy over K-12 Education. Recent national media coverage includes op-eds placed in The Wall Street Journal and The Weekly Standard.

¨¨¨

Pioneer Institute is an independent, non-partisan, privately funded research organization that seeks to improve the quality of life in Massachusetts through civic discourse and intellectually rigorous, data-driven public policy solutions based on free market principles, individual liberty and responsibility, and the ideal of effective, limited and accountable government.

Get Our Common Core Updates

Receive the latest updates in your inbox.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

More Common Core Articles

Evaluate teachers with a single or multiple measures?

http://boston.com/community/blogs/rock_the_schoolhouse/2012/01/evaluate_teachers_with_a_singl.html Back in July, I wrote a series of posts on teacher evaluations, outlining why the Massachusetts law that was passed, with much fanfare a “bold, pioneering teacher-evaluation system,” was not likely to lead to much improvement for teachers or for students. There are many other reasons to doubt the boldness or pioneering-ness of the new Massachusetts teacher evaluation system. There’s the small ball criticisms like The law required evaluations 18 years ago, and few school districts have fulfilled their requirements for that time – so what makes this different? By the time the evaluations go into effect (three years hence), the MCAS will be a thing of the past, with the state having promised to move to an unknown […]

Chester plan for Lawrence falls short on ideas, options

http://www.lowellsun.com/oped/ci_19718547 In November, state Education Commissioner Mitchell Chester announced he will  name a receiver with “all the powers of the superintendent and school committee”  to right Lawrence’s troubled schools, where about 80 percent of students score  in the two lowest categories on MCAS exams. The announcement is hardly reassuring on at least two counts. First, research  demonstrates that school turnaround efforts across the country have yielded  meager results and aren’t a scalable strategy for fixing troubled urban  districts. Second, the state’s education leadership doesn’t exactly inspire confidence.  In his very first budget, Gov. Deval Patrick proposed defunding the state’s  independent educational accountability office. Is it any wonder that the  Merrimack Special Education Collaborative flouted financial controls and misused  more than […]

Tough Times on virtual learning?

http://boston.com/community/blogs/rock_the_schoolhouse/2011/12/tough_times_on_virtual_learnin.html Back at the start of December, I blogged on the need for both an open door to online learning and also a greater focus on accountability for those who would operate in that space. Understanding the quality of the choices in the marketplace will have to be informed by more than giddy passion about the promise of virtual learning. A cursory look at the research done on virtual learning suggests that there has been to date more energy than light on the impact of VL on sustained student achievement. …We are just at the start of the virtual learning movement, and there is so much promise in the short term regarding access to high-quality content, targeted instruction, peer tutoring […]