Is the original goal of Common Core being lost in the upper grades?
-
One major difference between the U.S. and so-called ”A+ Countries” is, while we focus on breadth, they focus on depth. While there is a natural progression throughout a student’s school years from one math topic to another in these high-achieving countries, in the U.S. we seem to have a “throw at the wall and see what sticks” mentality. For example, in grade 8 we cover 32 unique mathematical topics. In high-achieving countries this number is just 18.
-
The new Common Core curriculum aims to bring our focus back to depth in the lower grades but seems to miss this mark once the abstract maths are reached. While it is true that more topics have been cut out than added in most grade levels, topics traditionally covered in Algebra 2 (and some may say pre-Calculus and above) – piecewise functions, limits, logarithms, areas under curves, Algebraic proofs, and rational function graphing to name a few – are now part of Algebra 1. Does adding so many advanced topics to the Gateway of Higher Math (ok, I’m biased) do what Common Core initially set out to do?
-
Below is a comparison of the math topics taught each year in A+ countries (first chart) and those covered in the U.S. (second chart) each year (compiled by Professor W.H. Schmidt). These comparison charts were created before, and as a support for, Math reform in the U.S. Still, to meet the new upper-grade Common Core Standards, school districts are turning to hybrid-type courses: “Algebra/Geometry/Stats Year 1″, etc. (Yes, that’s ONE year’s course) to meet all of the new high school requirements. While the Common Core sets out for mastery at the Elementary level, did it really mean to hybridize high school math? If depth is more important that breadth, what are we doing?
-
