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

Worcester T&G: Keep nat'l standards voluntary

Today’s Worcester Telegram & Gazette editorial underscores that adoption of the national standards needs to remain voluntary. The core of the argument is that the federal government should not have “legal power” over the standards. Washington is pressing to command a greater role in dictating what American children should learn, and how they should be taught. The result could be a useful adjunct to local and state instruction, or a costly blunder into a thicket of bureaucracy that does real harm to taxpayers and students. A common set of education standards that draws upon the collective wisdom of educators could present underachieving states and school districts with successful models to emulate, such as those in Massachusetts. But such standards must […]

Wurman & Stotsky skewer the proposed national standards

In the past days, the announcements by Minnesota and Virginia that they are most likely not going to adopt the common core standards drove giant holes right through the wall of consensus that the CCSSO and NGA have tried to maintain. Ze’ev Wurman, a high-tech executive in Silicon Valley active in developing California’s standards and assessments in the mid-1990s, and Sandy Stotsky, one of the nation’s top experts on academic standards, authored our research, Race to the Middle?, chronicling the numerous weaknesses in previous drafts of the common core standards drafts, as well as the soft conceptual underpinning for the whole effort. In today’s Boston Globe, they come out swinging on the public comment drafts. This is a must read, […]

Our Stand on Standards

Seems our report and the release of the common core standards draft have set off a lot of interest in Massachusetts’ view, and especially in Pioneer’s take on the national standards effort. See Jay Greene’s blog for a long string of comments. Here is a bit of a longish overview of some of the issues we see in this from the Massachusetts and the national perspective. First, the Mass perspective: 1. Standards are the lifeblood of student achievement in public schools; and that includes even those site-based managed schools that are based on parental choice. You all know the stories of charters and voucher programs that don’t deliver the kind of transformational improvement we all want. In MA, our charters […]