There exists an increased focus on school mathematics, especially first-year algebra, due to recent efforts for all students to be college and career ready. In addition, there are calls, policies, and legislation advocating for all students to study algebra epitomized by four rationales of the Algebra for All movement. In light of this movement, there must be a clear consensus about what is taught in the name of algebra. Yet, researchers documented this is not the case. The present research proposes to unify the leading algebra standards and assessment framework documents to identify the key ideas of algebra. The analysis resulted in six key ideas: (a) Variables, (b) Functions, (c) Patterns, (d) Modeling, (e) Technology, and (f) Multiple Representations. Outlined is the research process and resulting unification of existing algebra framework documents, and consideration is given for its uses in educational policy regarding algebra and potential directions for future research.
American Diploma Project. (2004). Ready or not: Creating a high school diploma that counts. Washington, DC: Achieve, Inc.
2.
AngusD. L.MirelJ. E. (2003). Mathematics enrollments and the development of the high school in the United States, 1910-1994. In StanicG. M. A.KilpatrickJ. (Eds.), A history of school mathematics: Volume 1 (pp. 441-489). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
3.
ArbaughF.Herbel-EisenmannB.RamirezN.KnuthE.KranendonkH.QuanderJ. R. (2010). Linking research and practice (The NCTM Research Agenda Conference Report). Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org/news/content.aspx?id=25315
4.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.
5.
CampbellJ. R.HomboC. M.MazzeoJ. (2000). NAEP 1999 trends in academic progress: Three decades of student performance (Report No. NCES 2000-469). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
6.
ChazanD. (2008). The shifting landscape of school algebra in the United States. In GreenesC. E.RubensteinR. (Eds.), Algebra and algebraic thinking in school mathematics (pp. 19-33). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
7.
CoganL. S.SchmidtW. H.WileyD. E. (2001). Who takes what math and in which track? Using TIMSS to characterize U.S. students’ eighth-grade mathematics learning opportunities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 323-341.
8.
College Board. (2000). Equity 2000: A systematic education reform model. Washington, DC: Author.
EulerL. (1984). Elements of algebra (HewlettJ., Trans.). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. (Reprinted from Element of Algebra, by L. Euler, 1840, London, England: Longman, Orme, and Co.)
12.
GammoranA. (1987). The stratification of high school learning opportunities. Sociology of Education, 60, 135-155.
13.
GammoranA.HanniganE. C. (2000). Algebra for everyone? Benefits of college-preparatory mathematics for students with diverse abilities in early secondary school. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22, 241-254.
14.
GreeneB. D.HermanM.HauryD. L. (2000). TIMSS: What have we learned about math and science teaching? Available from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
15.
JonesP. S.CoxfordA. F. (1970). Mathematics in the evolving schools. In JonesP. S.CoxfordA. F. (Eds.), A history of mathematics education in the United States and Canada (pp. 9-89). Washington, DC: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
16.
KaputJ. J. (2000). Transforming algebra from an engine of inequity to an engine of mathematical power by “algebrafying” the K-12 curriculum (Report No. Ed441 664). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
17.
KilpatrickJ.IzsákA. (2008). A history of algebra in the school curriculum. In GreenesC. E.RubensteinR. (Eds.), Algebra and algebraic thinking in school mathematics (pp. 3-18). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
18.
Learning First Alliance. (1998). Every child mathematically proficient: An action plan. Washington, DC: Author.
19.
LovelessT. (2008). The misplaced math student: Lost in eighth-grade algebra. Washington, DC: Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings.
20.
MadisonB. L.HartT. A. (1990). A challenge of numbers: People in the mathematical sciences. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
21.
McKnightC. C.CrosswhiteF. J.DosseyJ. A.KiferE.SwaffordJ. O.TraversK. J.CooneyT. J. (1987). The underachieving curriculum: Assessing U.S. school mathematics from an international perspective. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Company.
22.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
23.
MosesR. P.CobbC. E. (2001). Radical equations: Civil rights from Mississippi to the Algebra Project. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
24.
MullisI. V. S.MartinM. O.RuddockG. J.O’SullivanC. Y.PreuschoffC. (2009). TIMSS 2011 achievement framework. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center Lynch School of Education, Boston College.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). The nation’s report card: Mathematics 2009 (Report No. NCES 2010-451). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.
28.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The nation’s report card: Mathematics 2011 (Report No. NCES 2012-458). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.
29.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2013, June). National Assessment of Educational Process: What are the differences between long-term trend NAEP and Main NAEP? Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/ltt_main_diff.aspx
30.
National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). National assessment of educational progress (NAEP). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
31.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for education reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
32.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards. Reston, VA: Author.
33.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
34.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1995). Assessment standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
35.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
36.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010a). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards
National Research Council. (1989). Everybody counts: A report to the nation on the future of mathematics education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
39.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Public Law 107-110, 107th Cong. (2001).
40.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2009). PISA 2009 assessment framework: Key competencies in reading, mathematics, and science. Available from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/
41.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2013). PISA 2012 assessment and analytical framework: Mathematics, reading, science, problem solving and financial literacy. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264190511.en
42.
OvernO. E. A. (1937). Changes in curriculum in elementary algebra since 1900 as reflected in the requirements and examinations of the college entrance examination board. The Journal of Experimental Education, 5, 373-468.
43.
PaulF. (2005). Grouping within algebra I: A structural sieve with powerful effects for low-income, minority, and immigrant students. Educational Policy, 19, 262-282.
44.
PelavinS.KaneM. (1990). Changing the odds: Factors increasing access to college. New York, NY: The College Board.
45.
RAND Mathematics Study Panel. (2003). Mathematical proficiency for all students: Toward a strategic research and development program in mathematics education. Santa Monica, CA: Author.
46.
ReysB. J. (2006). The intended mathematics curriculum as represented in state-level curriculum standards: Consensus or confusion?Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
47.
RichardsonC.EddyC. M. (2011). The mathematics argument: Proponents and opponents of a standardized core. American Educational History Journal, 38, 277-288.
48.
RobitailleD. F.SchmidtW. H.RaizenS.McKnightC.BrittonE.NicolC. (1993). TIMSS Monograph No.1: Curriculum frameworks for mathematics and science. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Pacific Educational Press.
SchmidtW. (2009). Exploring the relationship between content coverage and achievement: Unpacking the meaning of tracking in eighth grade mathematics. Retrieved from http://education.msu.edu/epc/library/reports.asp
51.
SchmidtW. H.McKnightC. C.CoganL. S.JakwerthP. M.HouangR. T. (1999). Facing the consequences: Using TIMSS for a closer look at U.S. mathematics and science education. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
52.
SchoenfeldA. H. (2004). The math wars. Educational Policy, 18, 253-286.
53.
SpielhagenF. R. (2006a). Closing the achievement gap in math: The long-term effects of eighth-grade algebra. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18, 34-59.
54.
SpielhagenF. R. (2006b). Closing the achievement gap in math: Policy implications of eighth grade algebra for all students. American Secondary Education, 34, 29-42.
55.
SteinM. K.KaufmanJ. H.ShermanM.HillenA. F. (2011a). Algebra: A challenge at the crossroads of policy and practice. Review of Educational Research, 81, 453-492.
56.
SteinM. K.KaufmanJ. H.ShermanM.HillenA. (2011b, April). Balancing rigor and equity: A literature review to inform algebra policymaking and research. Research symposium presented at the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Annual Conference Research Presession, Indianapolis, IN.
