Talk:Mathematics education in the United States

Start
I've begun this page, any assistance is welcomed. Many thanks to those who wrote about the US on the general Math Ed page: I moved your text as appropriate. Therealcaro (talk) 03:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This page has been vastly improved. Thanks for getting the ball rolling. Nerd271 (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I want to learn math someone teach me Precious marakalla (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mathematics education in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509105739/http://www.csmonitor.com/sections/learning/mathmelt/p-2story052300.html to http://www.csmonitor.com/sections/learning/mathmelt/p-2story052300.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that when you click on link number 6 it leads to a page that no longer exists. I was wondering if that link could be updated, or if it should be taken down since the source no longer exists.

Thanks 22mross (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

"Algebra 1" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Algebra 1 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

POV edits
Someone keeps adding an edit based on a POV piece written by David Klein from 2003 (during the so-called Math Wars). The information being added is not accepted by the consensus that has evolved since that time, and it contradicts what is written in other Wikipedia articles, such as the one on Integrated Mathematics. The main part of the addition is:
 * In fact, as the math wars of the 1990s raged on, the de-emphasis of calculus in the high school curriculum meant that the so-called "integrated" textbooks offered subpar and unsystematic developments of algebra, geometry, and trigonometry. But even before that, during the 1970s and 1980s, the number of students taking remedial courses in college had risen substantially.

All of these points, of course, have been largely debunked, as other Wikipedia articles make clear. In fact, if this addition is allowed, this article will then contradict itself, since it claims earlier that Americans are far behind most other countries (actually we're middle-of-the-pack for developed countries, and even that varies considerably from state to state—Massachusetts has nearly the highest scores in the world), and yet this suggested edit implies that the American curriculum is vastly superior to the way math is taught in all other countries. Perhaps in order to soften this contradiction, the editor is also making edits which imply that there are other countries besides the U.S. which teach math according to the traditional American method, again in contradiction to other Wikipedia articles. The editor keeps reverting the article every time this edit is deleted.

If something is added about integrated math, it should of course be reflective of consensus opinion, rather than Math Wars rhetoric from two decades ago. It should also consider the position of official standards such as the Common Core, which puts "integrated math" and traditional American math on the same footing. In any case, all of this should be sorted out here on the Talk Page. seberle (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * That was here for a while before it was deleted. I have been editing this page for a while now. No, it does not make the article contradict itself. American students put up a rather average performance in international tests, as the numbers make it clear. Since this page is about mathematics education in the United States in general, it makes sense to talk about history. Perhaps the notion of "integrated mathematics" is a useful pedagogical tool, but the way it has been implemented did not deliver results, hence the opposition by some parents and mathematicians and its ultimate abandonment.


 * And no, your personal opinion does not constitute a consensus. Let's wait for a couple days to see if other people would like to join. Otherwise, I will request a third opinion.
 * The bit about Israel will be restored. The source mentions that country by name. Nerd271 (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry this has been difficult. I do appreciate some of the other edits Nerd271 has made. (Thanks for your hard work on this.) It's just this one that is unfortunately inaccurate. Let's make this a neutral, accurate article! It would be good if someone else chimed in to help sort this out.
 * The part about contradiction was just a side observation; sorry if that came across as the reason for the problem. Also, I am sorry if anyone thinks I am including my opinion. The way the world teaches math, or the position of the Common Core, is not my opinion. My apologies also that I was slow to make this correction initially. Life gets busy sometimes!
 * The problem with these additions is simply that they are not accurate. They are based on a single article written in 2003 in the heat of the "Math Wars" and contradict all other sources. I don't think some of the ideas in this addition are even in the referenced article, though I'd have to reread it. The idea that there are any other countries using the traditional American high school sequence is not correct. The article may have mentioned Israel as an example the author was familiar with, but that does not mean Israel is one of only a few countries. Virtually ALL countries use integrated math. The American high school math sequence is quite unique on the world stage. (See the references in the article on Integrated Math if needed.) I am removing the mention of Israel because it is misleading, but perhaps someone can suggest a different way to say something about this which does not contradict everything in the Wikipedia article on Integrated Math.
 * It would certainly be good to include something about the various debates around the Math Wars. Nerd271 is quite correct that there was backlash from parents unfamiliar with integrated math, and I am certain there were some poor implementations. But at the end of the debates, the Common Core declared that both were equally valid curricula, and this has been the research-supported decision in the United States ever since. New York used it for decades before switching back to the tranditional sequence. Hopefully we can come up with a good way of portraying the complex reality of the situation without inserting POV declarations about which sequence some people prefer. seberle (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Unless you can bring in a reliable source saying that "most" countries teach "integrated math," you cannot force the given source to say that. We need to stick faithfully to our chosen sources. That mathematician, David Bressoud, is by no means an ignoramus. He edited an entire series of research articles on the way calculus is taught in a number of countries. I checked before bringing him in. Multiple sources discuss how math is taught differently from other countries, some of which are mentioned by name. Overall, it seems that "integrated math" is taught at a much higher level in the ones mentioned, like Israel, Italy, and Singapore, with certain topics being introduced earlier. Nerd271 (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, again, the references can be found in the article on Integrated Mathematics. As far as I am aware, there is not a single country in the world outside of the U.S. that has adopted the American Algebra I - Geometry - Algebra II - Precalculus sequence. Not even Canada or Australia (the two countries probably closest to American education) follow such a system. But that's not important. We really don't need to go there. We can just leave the article at "many" instead of most in this article, since that is not really the issue here for this article. (Edit: Actually, both this article and the Integrated Mathematics article, correctly say "most," so it's best to leave it at that.) Again, singling out one specific country is not helpful, since it gives the wrong impression. seberle (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

General clean-up
Most of this article looks good, but I think it could be better. I am concerned by statements such as:


 * passing algebra is often a Herculean challenge
 * there was a movement aimed at systematically reforming American public education along more "progressive" grounds.
 * the decision by some educators to include the topics of race and sexuality into the mathematical curriculum has also met with stiff resistance.
 * the apparent dichotomy between basic skills and understanding of mathematical concepts is a delusion.
 * educational professionals did not understand mathematics as well as their critics
 * Jaime Escalante dismissed the NCTM standards as something written by a PE teacher.

...and quite a few similar statements in this article.

Some of these statements simply are not accurate. These of course need correcting. But mostly I'm concerned that some of these statements need to be toned down a bit. This is an encyclopedia, not a documentary attempting to promote a position. Extreme language and scare quotes are probably not appropriate here. A few statements seem to have references that don't really support the claims, or at least they don't justify some of the extreme language. It is important that we stick to encyclopedic content -- what secondary sources tend to agree on, factually reported -- instead of what a single blogger explains. Sometimes a judgment is justified. For example, it's fine to report that the New Math was strongly opposed, because it was. But most educational movements were divisive, with no clear "winner," and the article should not use language that takes one side over the other, unless there is some sort of clear consensus among experts. The article should never take a position for one side in such cases. Wikipedia articles need to be non-POV, right? seberle (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)


 * 1) This is accurate. The number of students struggling with Algebra I and II is not low.
 * 2) This was a genuine educational movement of the early twentieth century.
 * 3) This is well-reported by various news outlets. This is, unfortunately, a new front in the culture wars of our time.
 * 4) This is a statement from a professional mathematician and professor.
 * 5) Critics are not just parents but also mathematicians and mathematical scientists. Sometimes, they are the same people. Check out the responses from California and Massachusetts, for example. Both these states are home to some of America's most renowned schools. And Wikipedia does accept opinions from experts in the relevant fields.
 * 6) He is one respected educator who has spoken out against the new method of teaching.


 * Promoters of certain educational movements oftentimes clash with the public and other educators and experts in the fields. But ultimately, such opposition would peter out if desirable results are delivered. If STEM specialists are unhappy about the teaching of mathematics, something has gone wrong. Nerd271 (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I'm not being clear. I'm mixing several different issues together. A lot of great work by many people has gone into this article. I agree that opposition often peters out when educational movements go wrong. Such was the case of the New Math movement, for example. However, this has not been so clear with all movements, so we need to be careful. And I'm not so certain that good movements succeed quickly. Some math reform has taken literally centuries before finally accepted.


 * I agree that most of these sample statements are accurate. That's not the problem. What I'm suggesting is mostly a question of tweaking a word here or there. Algebra is definitely a big hurdle for some students, and some movements definitely involved rancorous debate. Nevertheless, words like "Herculean" or "stiff" might need rethinking, just to remain more encyclopedic. Scare quotes aren't needed around "progressive." Instead, we need to simply describe what has happened.


 * Also, defending one point of view, as some sentences do, is not for Wikipedia to do, even if it may seem clear to us that "something has gone wrong." For example, Statement 3 may or may not be "well-reported by various news outlets," but it wasn't in the reference given for that statement. Perhaps some clean-up and bit more research is needed? Faulty references are a common problem in many Wikipedia articles, including a few of my own contributions over the years!


 * And of course Wikipedia accepts expert opinion; but it also needs to remain POV neutral about divisive issues where experts disagree. Be careful not to dismiss some experts as not understanding math as well as the other side unless there is solid evidence for such an unusual position. It is natural for one side to cry, "The other side doesn't understand." But here at Wikipedia, we need to avoid attacking anyone, as some statements seem to do. We can, however, report that one side has been attacked, and by whom and why, and whether the other side has responded, and how. This is common in Wikipedia. However, I think we need to be careful that the article doesn't devolve into extensive debate-reporting with lots of "He said," and then "They said." Very brief summaries of the two sides are probably sufficient.


 * Most importantly, I'm not "attacking" any of these sample statements. I'm just trying to point out some examples that could use a bit of improvement. There are many more such statements, which is normal. Most Wikipedia articles could stand some clean-up, and I'm trying to point out some examples of the kind of thing we need to do to move forward to make this good article even better. I'll see if I can work on a few such sentences later. I just thought I'd describe what I'm seeing before beginning actual edits. (Or others can initiate some editing!) --seberle (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Integrated mathematics
This is an interesting section, but it does contradict a bit with the main article on integrated mathematics, which is more accurate. I have tried to correct some of the more obvious mistakes, but they keep getting reverted. To be fair, I am not competely happy with my latest edit either, though it is much more accurate than what used to be there (which did not even line up with its own references).

There is a complaint that some of this is redundant, which is a fair point. My suggestion is that perhaps most of this be moved and integrated into preceding sections. Probably the only thing that should be here is the "controversial" part (whether the U.S. should follow the rest of the world or keep its traditional algebra/geometry/algebra sequence, and whether there are any advantages of one system over the other). However, the controversy will not make sense without some of the historical and international background. So, this material needs to be somewhere and not simply deleted.

Rather than restore the older inaccurate material, let's maybe discuss here how this information on integrated math should be organized in this article? ---seberle (talk) seberle (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I moved some bits around and rewrote them to make everything fit better. Nerd271 (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the edits. The section is looking better and it is a lot more accurate. I am still concerned about certian statements which are not quite accurate. (They do not say what the references are saying.) But we're getting there! I'll double check the references when I have time before making further changes. Also, I think it might be good to break the block up into some smaller paragraphs for readability. --seberle (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Excessive citations
Nerd271, why did you remove that tag? The books being used at schools is not relevant to whether they can be cited here. To say the subjects of the books are required by schools, you have to cite either those schools or something else that actually verifies the claim. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 07:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * These books are among some of the most commonly used in their subject domains, at least in the United States in particular and English-speaking world in general. Some of them and their authors have their own Wikipedia pages. This page gives an overview of the curriculum. Although math (and more generally STEM) education is by now highly standardized, different schools will offer variations on the theme. Students are encouraged to check the course descriptions of their own schools, as the page makes clear. This also serves as a depository for commonly used and highly rated textbooks, which could come in handy for students, parents, and instructors. Nerd271 (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a repository for books. Ref tags are there mainly so people can click on them and find out if what Wikipedia says is true. It's misleading to use them otherwise, because readers will think the information in the article is verified in multiple sources. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 08:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it is a secondary and convenient purpose. We also have lists for textbooks in certain subjects. Again, some of these and their authors have their own Wikipedia pages. Nerd271 (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The proper way to list them would be in their own article or in a further reading section. See the collapsed box below for what it would look like. I think you'll agree there are so many books here that the reader does not know where to start. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 07:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree that citing a bunch of books is probably not the best way to go on this. Ideally, an encyclopedia needs good secondary sources. I agree that citing countless textbooks is confusing and dangerously close to original research, which is not allowed. I think we can do better. --seberle (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)