THE CHANGING LANDSCAPE OF AMERICAN MATHEMATICS EDUCATION

CBMS Oct 5-7, 2014eeting

Philip Uri TreismanProfessor of Mathematics and Public Affairs

Director, Charles A Dana CenterUniversity of Texas at Austin

April 10, 2014

THE CHANGING NATURE OF MATHEMATICS

Source: National Academies Press

THE COMPLETION AGENDA AND STRUCTURAL CHANGE IN

HIGHER EDUCATION

Performance Based Funding for Higher Education

Source: National Conference of State Legislatures

Higher Education Mathematics Course Enrollment

4 Year Institutions 2 Year Institutions

1995 2000 2005 2010 1995 2000 2005 2010College Algebra and below 57% 58% 56% 54% 81% 81% 81% 80%

Calculus 37% 35% 37% 38% 10% 8% 7% 7%

Advanced Courses 7% 6% 7% 8% Other Courses (2 Year) 12% 10% 12% 12%TOTAL Enrollment(in thousands) 1469 1614 1607 1971 1348 1273 1580 1887

Source: Adapted from the CBMS 2010 Census Report, Table S.2

THE COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS AGENDA AND THE REDEFINITION OF THE HIGH

SCHOOL DIPLOMA

Source: Closing the Expectations Gap Report – Achieve.org

Source: College Board – SAT Report on College and Career Readiness, 2013

Source: ACT Report – National College Readiness, 2013

15

Percentage of Educators Reporting that Their StudentsAre “Well” or “Very Well” Prepared for College-Level WorkIn Their Content Area

Source and Graphic: ACT National Curriculum Survey 2012, ACT 2013.

But, on February 7, 2014 the Lumina Foundation and Gallup released a poll on how business leaders view higher education.

“While 96% of Chief Academic Officers think they are equipping their graduates for the work force, just 11% of employers strongly agree.”

Singa

pore

Taiw

an

Macao

-China

Liech

tenste

in

Netherl

ands

Finlan

d

Canad

a

German

y

Austria

Irelan

d

New Ze

aland

Czech Rep

ublic

United Kingd

om

Icelan

d

Luxe

mbourg

Portuga

lSp

ain

Slova

k Rep

ublic

Lithuan

ia

Hungary

Israe

l

Serb

ia

Romania

Bulgaria

Kazakh

stan

Chile

Mexico

Urugu

ay

Albania

Argentina

Jord

anQata

rPeru

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

613

494482

368

Aver

age

Scal

e Sc

ore

17

PISA 2012 Mathematics

OECD average

U.S. average

Source: PISA 2012 Results in Focus: What 15-Year Olds-Know and What They Can Do With What They Know, OECD 2013

18

PISA and Poverty

Source: Michael Marder, 2013; from PSID, CNEF, UNICEF, and PISA datasets

19

Math Achievement at the 8th Grade (TIMSS 2011)Average Scale Scores by Country and Selected US States

Source: Data taken from the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), accessed Jan 10, 2013 at http://nces.ed.gov/timss/index.asp. Data display by the Charles A. Dana Center.

Korea, Rep. of 613 Slovenia 505   Lebanon 449

Singapore 611 Hungary 505   Abu Dhabi-UAE 449

Chinese Taipei-CHN 609 Australia 505   Malaysia 440

Hong Kong-CHN 586 Alberta-CAN 505   Georgia 431

Japan 570 Lithuania 502   Thailand 427

Massachusetts-USA 561 TIMSS scale average 500   Macedonia, Rep. of 426

Minnesota-USA 545 Italy 498   Tunisia 425

Russian Federation 539 California-USA 493   Chile 416

North Carolina-USA 537 New Zealand 488   Iran, Islamic Rep. of 415

Quebec-CAN 532 Kazakhstan 487   Qatar 410

Indiana-USA 522 Sweden 484   Bahrain 409

Connecticut-USA 518 Ukraine 479   Jordan 406

Colorado-USA 518 Dubai-UAE 478   Palestinian Nat'l Auth. 404

Israel 516 Norway 475   Saudi Arabia 394

Finland 514 Armenia 467   Indonesia 386

Florida-USA 513 Alabama-USA 466   Syrian Arab Republic 380

Ontario-CAN 512 Romania 458   Morocco 371

United States 509 United Arab Emirates 456   Oman 366

England-GBR 507 Turkey 452   Ghana 331

20

Average Scale Scores by State – Low-Income Students8th Grade – NAEP Math (2013)

Massac

husetts

New Ham

pshire

Texa

s

Vermont

Wyo

ming

Montana

New Je

rsey

Idaho

Kansas

Maine

North Dak

ota

Wash

ington

Indiana

Minnesota

North Caro

lina

Ohio

Wisc

onsin

Hawaii

Pennsyl

vania

Colorado

Florid

a

Missouri

Nebras

ka

Oregon

South

Dakota

National

publicIowa

Marylan

dUtah

Virginia

Delaware

Nevad

a

New Yo

rk

Arizona

Illinois

Kentu

ckyAlas

ka

Arkansas

Georgi

a

New M

exico

Oklahoma

Rhode Isla

nd

South

Carolin

a

West

Virginia

Louisi

ana

Michiga

n

Tenness

ee

Californ

ia

Connecticu

t

Mississ

ippi

Distric

t of C

olumbia

Alabam

a250

260

270

280

290

281

270

256Ave

rage

Sca

le S

core

Source: NAEP Data Explorer, NCES. Graphic: Charles A. Dana Center.

STRUCTURAL CHANGES IN THE AMERICAN ECONOMY

25

Now, instead of being the “land of opportunity,” the U.S. has one of the lowest rates of

intergenerational mobility.

UK U.S. France Germany Sweden Canada Finland Norway Denmark0

0.2

0.4

0.60.5 0.47

0.41

0.320.27

0.19 0.18 0.17 0.15

Earn

ings

Ela

stici

tyCross-country examples of the link between father and son wages

Source: Tom Hertz, “Understanding Mobility in America” (Washington, D.C.: Center for American Progress, 2006). Graph by Education Trust.

26

The New Mathways Project (NMP) ModelA systemic approach to improving student success by reforming developmental and gateway mathematics based on four fundamental principles:

1. Multiple pathways aligned to specific but broad fields of study2. Acceleration that allows students to complete a college-level math course more quickly3. Intentional use of strategies to help students develop skills as learners that are directly

linked to their courses4. Curriculum design and pedagogy based on proven practice and linked to improvement

protocols

27

28

STATISTICS PATHWAY is designed for students seeking a college-level statistics course as part of their general education requirement for majors in fields including:• Nursing• Social Work• Criminal Justice

QUANTITATIVE REASONING PATHWAY is designed for students pursuing a field of study in which general education math is a requirement. These fields include majors in: • Communications• Graphic Design• Paralegal

STEM-PREP PATHWAY is designed for students seeking a STEM or mathematics-intensive major in fields including: • Petroleum Engineering• Computer Science• Chemistry

Cumulative Pathway EnrollmentCarnegie’s Pathways

2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015*0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

1,551

4,506

8,864

15,000

Consistent Success Rates Over Time: more students and more faculty teaching

Carnegie’s Pathways

2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-20140%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

56%52%

57%

49%52% 51%

Quantway 1 Statway

Contact Information• To receive monthly updates about the NMP, contact us at:

mathways@austin.utexas.edu

• General information about the Dana Center: www.utdanacenter.org

• General Information about the Carnegie Foundation:• www.carnegiefoundation.org– Bernadine Chuck Fong: Fong@carnegiefoundation.org

– Uri Treisman: uri@math.utexas.edu

31