During the 1990s, the teaching of mathematics became the subject of heated controversies known as the math wars. The immediate origins of the conflicts can be traced to the “reform” stimulated by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics’ Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. Traditionalists fear that reform-oriented, “standards-based” curricula are superficial and undermine classical mathematical values; reformers claim that such curricula reflect a deeper, richer view of mathematics than the traditional curriculum. An historical perspective reveals that the underlying issues being contested—Is mathematics for the elite or for the masses? Are there tensions between “excellence” and “equity”? Should mathematics be seen as a democratizing force or as a vehicle for maintaining the status quo?—are more than a century old. This article describes the context and history, provides details on the current state, and offers suggestions regarding ways to findaproductive middle ground.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Apple, M. (1992). Do the standards go far enough? Power, policy, and practice in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(5), 412-431.
Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences. (2001). The mathematical education of teach-ers. Washington, DC: Author.
9.
Daro, P. (2003). Math wars peace treaty. Manuscript in preparation.
10.
de Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., & Greer, B. (1996). Mathematics teaching and learning. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology(pp. 491-549). New York: Macmillan.
11.
Gardner, H. (1985). The mind’s new science: A history of the cognitive revolution. New York: Basic Books.
Jackson, A. (1997a). The math wars: California battles it out over mathematics education (Part I). Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 44(6), 695-702.
14.
Jackson, A. (1997b). The math wars: California battles it out over mathematics education (Part II). Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 44(7), 817-823.
15.
Jacob, B. (1999). Instructional materials for K-8 mathematics classrooms: The California adoption, 1997. In E. Gavosto, S. Krantz, & W. McCallum (Eds.), Contemporary issues in mathematics education (Mathematical Sciences Research Institute Publications 36, pp. 109-122).Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
16.
Jacob, B. (2001). Implementing standards: The California mathematics textbook debacle. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(3), 264-272. Also available from http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0111jac.htm
17.
Jacob, B., & Akers, J. (2003). Research-Based mathematics education policy: The case of California 1995-1998. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Retrieved June 27, 2003, from the Centre for Innovation in Mathematics Teaching, University of Exeter, UK, http://www.intermep.org
18.
Jones, P. S., & Coxford, A. F., Jr. (1970). Mathematics in the evolving schools. In P. Jones (Ed.), A history of mathematics education (pp. 11-92). Washington, DC: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
19.
Klein, D. (1998, May 3). The state’s invisible math standards: California adopts a set of world-class guidelines for public schools—And the powers that be promptly try to make them dis-appear. Los Angeles Times, p. 15.
Kozol, J. (1992). Savage inequalities. New York: Harper Perennial.
22.
Lappan, G. (1997, October). Lessons from the Sputnik era in mathematics education. Paper presented at the National Academy of Sciences symposium titled Reflecting on Sputnik: Linking the past, present, and future of educational reform. Retrieved March 7, 2003, from http://www.nas.edu/sputnik/index.htm
23.
Madison, B. L., & Hart, T. A. (1990). A challenge of numbers: People in the mathematical sciences. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
24.
McKnight, C., Crosswhite, J., Dossey, J., Kifer, E., Swafford, J., Travers, K., et al. (1987). The underachieving curriculum: Assessing U.S. mathematics from an international perspective. Champaign, IL: Stipes.
25.
McKnight, C., Travers, K., Crosswhite, J., & Swafford, J. (1985). Eighth grade mathematics in the secondary schools: A report from the Second International Mathematics Study. Arithmetic Teacher, 32(8), 20-26.
26.
McKnight, C., Travers, K., & Dossey, J. (1985). Twelfth grade mathematics in U.S. high schools: A report from the Second International Mathematics Study. Mathematics Teacher, 78(4), 292-300.
27.
Moses, R. P. (2001). Radical equations: Math literacy and civil rights. Boston: Beacon.
28.
National Action Committee for Minorities in Engineering. (1997). Engineering and affirmative action: Crisis in the making. New York: Author.
29.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Available from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html
30.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1980). An agenda for action: Recommendations for school mathematics of the 1980s. Reston, VA: Author.
31.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
32.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
33.
National Research Council. (1989). Everybody counts: A report to the nation on the future of mathematics education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
34.
National Research Council. (1995). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
35.
National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
36.
National Science Foundation. (2000). Science and engineering indicators. Washington, DC: Author.
Pearson, P. D. (2004). The reading wars. Educational Policy, 18, 216-253.
39.
Riley, R. W. (1998). The state of mathematics education: Building a strong foundation for the 21st century. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 45(4), 487-491. Also available from http://www.ams.org/notices/199804/riley.pdf
40.
Rosen, L. (2000). Calculating concerns: The politics of representation in California’s “math wars.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California, San Diego.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.) Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334-370). New York: Macmillan.
44.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1994). What do we knowabout mathematics curricula? Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 13(1), 55-80.
45.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2002). Making mathematics work for all children: Issues of standards, testing, and equity. Educational Researcher, 31(1), 3-15.
46.
Senk, S., & Thompson, D. (Eds.). (2003). Standards-oriented school mathematics curricula: What does the research say about student outcomes? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
47.
Shermer, M. (2002). Why people believe weird things: Pseudoscience, superstition, and other confusions of our time (Rev. ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
48.
Stanic, G. M. A. (1987). Mathematics education in the United States at the beginning of the twentieth century. In Thomas S. Popkewitz (Ed.), The formation of school subjects: The struggle for creating an American institution (pp. 147-183). New York: Falmer.
