| dc.description.abstract | This dissertation examined K-12 mathematics content standards for states and countries to determine the degree of alignment among high-performing, low-performing, and other data sets of interest. The assessment frameworks for the Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), and the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) were also examined. In addition, the dissertation examined the cognitive demand level, or student expectation, in the standards. At the elementary level, the researcher found that Minnesota, Georgia, the District of Columbia (DC), Massachusetts, Achieve, Florida, and New York had the strongest alignment to high-performing countries. At the middle school level, Georgia, Minnesota, DC, Achieve, and Florida had the strongest alignment to high-performing countries.^At the secondary level, Minnesota, Georgia, Massachusetts, and New York had the strongest alignment to high-performing countries.^Examining the states against the high-performing countries grade level by grade level demonstrated the wide variability in the states' standards and the lack of focus and curriculum coherence in the majority of the standards in the United States. Most of the standards in the United States cover a wide variety of topics that were repeated year after year, as evidenced in the grade-level by grade-level sequence alignment analysis to high-performing countries. Massachusetts, Achieve, and Minnesota were the data sets with the strongest alignment to TIMSS. Ohio, Massachusetts, Kansas, and Kentucky were the states with the strongest alignment to NAEP. The data sets with the strongest alignment to PISA were Kentucky, New Mexico, Vermont, Mississippi, Ohio, Texas, Kansas, Georgia, and Pennsylvania.^Overall, the alignment results demonstrate that high levels of alignment to high-performing countries and to assessments do not absolutely equate to high performance.^The cognitive demand analysis revealed that high-performing countries had stronger emphasis on memorize than other data sets. Low-performing states emphasized perform procedures rather than demonstrate understanding or memorize. Low-performers appeared to emphasize conjecture/generalize/prove and solve non-routine problems at the expense of the cognitive demand skills of memorize, perform procedures, and demonstrate understanding. | |
