In a time when the job market increasingly requires math and science competency, many Americans lack the mathematic literacy necessary for science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) careers. Research from the University of California at Los Angeles found that sixty percent of STEM intending students transfer out, which depletes the U.S. STEM field's human capital, requiring companies to look oversees for employment (Lloyd 1).  While the problem requires urgent attention, it's by no means a new dilemma, and neither are the proposed solutions.  Psychologist David Klein points out "There is nothing new about disagreements over the best ways to educate the nation's school children ... the education wars of the past century are best understood as a protracted struggle between content and pedagogy" (Klein 3, 8).  Advocates for math education reform continually focus on telling teachers how and what to teach. This constant push for better math requirements has only distracted schools from more obvious issues in U.S. math education.  Many U.S. math teachers are underpaid and underqualified, there's an excessive amount of child poverty, and schools use an outdated assembly-line style education, with little room for flexibility.  Education reforms need to focus on raising teacher pay, eliminating childhood poverty, and cutting back on rigorous standards to allow teachers more freedom to teach to the needs of individual students. 

Standards seeking to 'raise the bar' unintentionally lead to over testing and narrow the scope of teaching towards standardized tests.  While there should be some standards to ensure graduates fit some qualifications, the movement has gone too far, overlooking the underlying problems behind America's mathematic illiteracy and creating even more issues. While math standard reforms are generally well intentioned, "very little evidence supports that having national academic standards will improve the quality of American public education" (Main 2).

The most recent set of U.S. math standards, Common Core, moves away from memorization and step-by-step problem solving, and instead focuses on understanding of why mathematical procedures occur, not just how to perform them.  At surface level, these new requirements seem promising and are backed scientifically.  Studies have shown "Students who are exposed to the logic behind mathematical procedures are more likely to be able to learn and correctly apply those procedures than students who attempt to apply rules without regard to their reasonableness" (Buris 12).  However, this quest for deeper understanding negates the importance of being able to easily perform basic math operations, which are needed in higher level math.  Common Core emphasizes teaching multiple strategies to perform simple operations while ignoring the importance of finding the simplest and most efficient solution.  For example, Common Core requires first graders to learn several strategies for addition: counting up, decomposing numbers into quantities of ten, number bonding, creating tens, using the relationship between addition and subtraction, and using properties of addition (Grade 1).  Students only need to know one effective strategy for addition, which is what math in the 1980s stressed.  However, 1980s math de-emphasized the importance of understanding, and focused almost entirely on performance through rote memorization (Klein 31).  Both performance and understanding are important in mathematics, yet looking at the trends in U.S. math education reform since 1957 reveals an ongoing battle between performance and understanding (Klein 354).     

Standards requiring educators to focus primarily on one aspect or the other diminish teachers' freedom to accommodate for their students' varying skills and learning styles.  Although the Common Core founders claim it increases teacher freedom by decreasing the number of math concepts students are required to learn; it is the first set of national standards which set grade-by-grade expectations (Read the Standards 8).  Many also point out how grade-by-grade national standards make transitioning between schools much easier.  However, this is only true in a fundamentally flawed education system, where students are placed in classes based on grade level, not academic abilities.  Why assume the best way for kids to learn is through an assembly line style system, where students study predetermined topics, at predetermined times with students of their same age?  Children are not uniform products.  They all have different learning strategies, thought processes, interests, and abilities.  Teachers need the freedom to teach different problem solving strategies, to different students, at different times.  Of course, there are topics every kid should know when they graduate, but they don't all have to learn them at the same time and in the same manner.  

This concept first occurred to me after being held back in kindergarten because I didn't know the alphabet and couldn't read. I couldn't have moved on to first grade, but repeating the grade would not help me either, because if the teaching strategies didn't work for me the first time, they were not going to work the second time.  For that reason, I left the school and began homeschooling while my parents looked for professionals who could teach me to read.  They enrolled me in a private institution out-of-state, and after half a year of one-on-one instruction, I was reading at an above average level.  The program did not involve any fancy technology; it used a repetition of the same letter sounds until I got them right.  All I needed was a different teaching strategy that my kindergarten didn't offer, but because I couldn't learn using traditional techniques, I was labeled slow and would have been held back at my kindergarten.  Meanwhile, other schools were already using this program, but it didn't fit the curriculum of my school so it wasn't included.  

Obviously not all schools can afford one-on-one instruction, but teachers need the freedom to teach outside the standard methods and curriculum when it's in the best interest of a student.  Unfortunately, teachers often become so focused on teaching to the standardized tests, that they lose track of what's really important.  The point of school is for kids to gain the skills necessary to succeed beyond the classroom, not just to pass standardized tests.  These more specific classes should target particular student's abilities, interests, and learning styles.  Unfortunately, America's lawmakers do not seem to agree and mandate a shocking number of standardized tests.  Research from the Council of the Great City Schools found that on average Americans take 112 standardized tests from kindergarten to twelfth grade, compared to three for most countries which outperform the U.S. educationally (Layton 1).  

This creates a system where teachers teach to the test, not the student, and it immensely limits teaching freedom, which is why the tenth amendment, the General Educational Provisions Act, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 were created (Unconstitutional and Illegal 1).  The General Educational Provisions Act bans federal control of state schools, stating "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, direct, or control a state, local educational agency, or school's curriculum, program of instruction, or allocation of State and local resources, or mandate a State or any subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this Act." (Unconstitutional and Illegal 5).  Common Core proponents say that Common Core does not violate any laws because it is 'state lead' (Myths vs. Facts 7).  On the contrary, Common Core is copyrighted by two Washington lobbyist groups, the National Governor's Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, and was written by five people from within these groups (Branding Guidlines) (Pesta 13:18). Additionally, the Math Standards Validation Committee consisted of eight people, only two of whom had degrees in mathematics (Milgram 11:30).  Neither of these members approved of the requirements, but the Standards were approved despite their objection (Milgram 11:45).  Alarmingly, states were coerced into accepting Common Core before it was even written.  In 2009, President Obama created the Race to the Top Program and urged schools to apply for grants through this program (Pesta 21:00).  The only pre-requisite for the grants was that states had to implement Common Core once it was written (Pesta 21:14).  

Common Core has not been willingly accepted by the states.  In responses to the questionable legality of Common Core, Bobby Jindal, governor of Louisiana, sued the Board of Education claiming the standards were unconstitutional and illegal.  However, despite the lack of state involvement in the creation and implementation of Common Core, the Standards were deemed legal, because the court ruled they were only standards and not curriculum (Jindal v. United States Board of Education 1).  This opinion is the only available court ruling addressing the legality of Common Core. 

 Regardless of whether or not Common Core is curriculum or standards, legal or illegal, it homogenizes U.S. education without regard to the individuality of students.  Likewise, if the whole country teaches to the same standards, when there's a problem with the standards, because no standards are perfect, teachers cannot adjust because they are required to teach these Standards.  Common Core has numerous inadequacies that teachers in the Common Core States cannot improve upon because they are prohibited.  

To start, Common Core requires kindergartners to perform tasks that psychologists previously thought were developmentally inappropriate (Main 3).  For example, this requirement of kindergarteners for example requires students to perform tasks at a level of two to six years ahead of their natural developmental progression.  Students must "Compose and decompose numbers from 11 to 19 into ten ones and some further ones, e.g., by using objects or drawings, and record each composition or decomposition by a drawing or equation (such as 18 = 10 + 8); understand that these numbers are composed of ten ones and one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, or nine ones" (Kindergarten 3).  Contrary to the expectation of these standards, children cannot perform and understand this task until the partitioning phase of a child's development, which they do not enter until ages six to nine and do not complete until ages nine to eleven (Main 3).  Sure, some kindergarteners might be able to do this, but this standard is by no means appropriate for every student nationwide.  Lawmakers need to realize that no set of academic standards are appropriate for all children across the board and teachers deserve the freedom to teach to the needs of specific students.

Not only do academic standards limit teacher flexibility, their benefit on student performance pales in comparison to teacher quality.  "Research by Grover Whitehurst and by Tom Loveless of the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution, for example, finds virtually no relationship between the quality of state education standards and the achievement test scores of students in the respective states" (Haskins 8).  While standards have little effect on academic achievement, the Center for Public Education states, "having an effective teacher consistently rises to the top as the most important factor in learning -- more so than student ethnicity or family income, school attended, or class size" (Center for Public Education 2005).  

Instead of mandating standards for schools nationwide, the federal government should shift its efforts to improving teacher quality.  The No Child Left Behind Act attempted this by requiring teachers to possess a bachelor's degree and either pass an education test (elementary school teachers) or a subject test (middle and high school) (What the No Child ... 11).  However, some schools struggled to meet this requirement when qualified teachers were not available, and this standard provides no incentive to be any better of a teacher than the basic qualifications entail (What the No ...  11).  

A more effective approach would be to incentivize educators who possess attributes linked to greater student success.  The Center for Public Education states that "[teaching] certification in mathematics for secondary teachers is associated with higher student performance in the subject" (Center for Public ...  18).  To encourage more teachers to acquire said certification, the federal government should provide a slight salary enhancement for those who possess it.  The CPE also acknowledges "teachers with higher test scores [in their subject] are more effective at both the elementary and high school levels" (CPE 33) and for this reason a slight salary enhancement should also be provided for high testing educators.  A minor in mathematics would also demonstrate subject knowledge, so a math minor should entail a larger salary.  

 The most substantial pay raise should go to teachers who attain a bachelor's or master's degree in mathematics.  Because math typically shifts from pre-determined procedures at the entry levels to more self-driven reasoning which requires a deeper understanding at the more advanced levels, math majors would be more likely to value understanding and reasoning over step-by-step approaches.  Stanford math professor Jo Boaler also points out that when someone learns math concepts and understands the reasoning, a process called compression occurs where the concepts gradually consume less space in the brain (Boaler 5).  However, when one learns math through memorization, the act of compression does not occur (Boaler 6).  So learning the reasoning makes students more effective at math and makes the concepts take up less space in the brain, making it easier to move on to later math (Boaler 7).  Since math majors spend significant time using reason, not memorized procedures, they are more likely to teach this way and produce better math students.  Evidence by the CPE supports this claim, citing "students who had math teachers with a bachelor's degree in math had earned higher math scores" (CPE 30).  

Math teachers with mathematics degrees are preferred, but the pay gap between private sector math jobs and public school math teachers discourages qualified mathematicians interesting in teaching.  While the average U.S. high school math teacher earns $55,050 annually (Math Teacher Career), a typical mathematician makes almost double this rate at $103,720 (BLS).  In order to gain more qualified math teachers, the federal government should substantially increase salaries for teachers with degrees in math. 

Not only should teachers who fit certain qualifications receive a pay raise, so should those who demonstrate good performance.  To enable better teacher performance, the government should pay teachers to attend research-backed teacher training programs.  If a teacher's students score higher than predicted on standardized tests after having a certain teacher, that teacher should receive a raise.  Given that that test scores are not always the best predictor of student success, and that students are vastly over tested already, student success (for judging teaching quality) should also be measured by performance in future classes and achievement beyond the classroom.

 Though the federal government raising quality teacher pay would yield improvement for math students, the opposite (lowering ineffective teacher pay) would likely not create the same results and would entail widespread criticism by teachers and parents and students whose teachers quit because their pay was cut.  Also, there's no guarantee a school would have the option of hiring highly qualified math teachers, and cutting lesser qualified teacher pay would only reduce the teaching prospects available for hire.  

However, if a teacher continually fails to fulfill his/her obligation, the individual school should have the right to demote/fire them.  Unfortunately, teacher tenure (guaranteed employment) prevents many ineffective educators from losing their job.  "According to the pro-education reform documentary "Waiting for 'Superman" one out of every 57 doctors loses his or her license to practice medicine.  One out of every 97 lawyers loses their license to practice law.

In many major cities, only one out of 1000 teachers is fired for performance-related reasons" (Protecting Bad Teachers 1).  Guaranteeing teachers' employment regardless of performance not only enables tenured teachers to perform poorly, it drains school funds that could go to higher qualified teachers.  

Although, tenure was originally put in place to prevent firing teachers based on political affiliation, pregnancy and other unjustified causes, it detracts from overall teacher quality and should not be permitted in the K-12 level.  Yet "In most states, teachers are awarded tenure after only a few years, at which time they become almost impossible to fire" (Protecting Bad ...  5).  According to a 2003 survey of U.S. schoolteachers by Public Agenda "When asked "does tenure mean that a teacher has worked hard and proved themselves to be very good at what they do?" 58 percent of the teachers polled answered that no, tenure "does not necessarily" mean that" (Protecting ...  13).  While it should be prohibited to fire teachers for reasons that do not directly negatively impact students (which tenure prevents), no teacher should be exempt from firing for poor performance.  

Teachers are however very unwilling to give up their tenure.  "In Washington, D.C., school chancellor Michelle Rhee proposed a voluntary two-tier track for teachers. On one tier teachers could simply do nothing: Maintain regular raises and keep their tenure. On the other track, teachers could give up tenure and be paid according to how well they and their students performed with the potential to earn as much as $140,000 per year. The union wouldn't even let that proposal come up for a vote, however, stubbornly blocking efforts to ratify a new contract for more than three years" (Protecting ...  16).   Although the Federal Government likely cannot stop teacher tenure, they should attempt to prevent it by only providing the previously mentioned math teacher salary enhancements to non-tenured teachers.  

Similar to teacher quality, and unlike academic standards, childhood poverty is a significant predictor of student performance according to the Miami-Dade Public Schools' research services and therefore should be addressed by education reforms ((The Effect of Poverty on Student Achievement 5).  In conjunction, "All students, whether they are from low, middle, or high income backgrounds, have been found to have lower levels of achievement when they attend schools with high concentrations of poor students", which urges even more focus on poverty when attempting to improve academic performance (The Effect of Poverty on Student Achievement 5).  

While a variety of factors commonly associated with impoverished children that lead to poor academic performance are out of schools' control, there are steps that schools can take to reduce the effect poverty has on academic performance.  In 2006, the think tank Education Trust found that "students in schools with a large percentage of minority and low-income students are more likely to be taught by teachers who are inexperienced and lack a major or minor in the subjects they teach" (What the No ...  15).  Raising qualified teacher pay, providing more teacher education programs, and ending teacher tenure schools would improve teacher quality for all students, including those from poor neighborhoods (What the No ...  15). 

Also more common among the lower class, "Poor diets, hunger, and related nutritional problems have adverse effects on student achievement" (The Effect of Poverty ...  3).  If schools provided students a healthy breakfast and lunch and prohibited unhealthy food at school, poor nutrition would pose less of a threat on academic performance.  

Unpreventable childhood stress can also impede academic success by placing students in a state of learned helplessness.  According to Seligman and Meier, when someone (especially a child) is repeatedly exposed to unpreventable adverse stimuli (dangerous neighborhood, abuse, hunger, etc.) they often lose their motivation to prevent these misfortunes, which leads to depression and lack of motivation in life (Hock 246).  Counseling can reduce the impacts of childhood stress. While education reform cannot stop childhood stress, it can reduce it by cutting back on stressful standardized test, especially timed math tests.  According to Stanford math professor Jo Boaler, "For about one-third of students, the onset of timed testing is the beginning of math anxiety" (Speed and Time ...  1). 

Instead of mandating national education standards that lead to over testing, stress students, push children away from math, and have insignificant effects on performance, education reform should focus on improving the quality of teachers so they know how and what to teach.  Raising teacher pay to improve teacher quality would be overwhelmingly more effective.  Doing away with national standards would give teachers more freedom teachers to specify their teaching towards the individual qualities of various students and having more qualified teachers would ensure their more capable of doing so.  Without national standards, students would be less stressed and disinterested in school because of the over testing, and they would have more time to learn not test.  The money saved from doing away with national standards could also provide school lunches and student counseling.  There is a lot of improvement that could be made in current U.S. education polices, but for the best results, childhood poverty must be eliminated, children must gain an interest in learning, and teaching must become a highly respected profession.  These lofty goals could only be met with the involvement of parents, teachers, students, educators, lawmakers, and society as a whole.

