http://tme.journals.libs.uga.edu/index.php/tme/issue/feedThe Mathematics Educator2016-12-15T22:50:52-05:00Julia Przybyla-Kuchek & Halil I. Tasovatme.uga@gmail.comOpen Journal Systems<em>The Mathematics Educator</em> strives to provide a forum for collaboration of mathematics educators at varying levels of professional experience. Its purpose is to promote the interchange of ideas among the mathematics education community, locally, nationally, and internationally and to present a variety of viewpoints on a broad spectrum of issues related to mathematics education.http://tme.journals.libs.uga.edu/index.php/tme/article/view/357Front Matter2016-12-15T22:50:41-05:00TME Editorstme@uga.eduCover, letter from the editors, and table of contents2016-12-15T22:50:41-05:00Copyright (c) 2016 TME Editorshttp://tme.journals.libs.uga.edu/index.php/tme/article/view/358A Note to Reviewers2016-12-15T22:50:42-05:00TME Editorstme@uga.eduThank you to reviewers and list of current TME reviewers2016-12-15T22:50:42-05:00Copyright (c) 2016 TME Editorshttp://tme.journals.libs.uga.edu/index.php/tme/article/view/348Are the K–2 Common Core State Standards for Mathematics Developmentally Appropriate?2016-12-15T22:50:43-05:00Yenny Otáloratme@uga.edu<div><p class="tmeabstract">In this article, I (a) illustrate how the K–2 CCSSM reflect the major findings from research studies carried out over the last 30 years on early mathematical abilities that indicate these standards are developmentally appropriate for young children, and (b) offer insights into some types of instructional strategies (e.g., student-centered approaches, assessment methods) that teachers can use to implement the standards to foster young children’s mathematical abilities and dispositions without detriment to children’s natural development. I conclude that the K–2 CCSSM can be used as a tool to understand children’s natural ways of thinking and encourage innovative learning and teaching in school settings. The K–2 CCSSM also provide a common referent for early mathematics educators to discuss how to improve early mathematics education.</p></div>2016-12-15T22:50:43-05:00Copyright (c) 2016 Yenny Otálorahttp://tme.journals.libs.uga.edu/index.php/tme/article/view/351Public Conceptions of Algorithms and Representations in Common Core State Standards for Mathematics2016-12-15T22:50:45-05:00Robert J. Nannatme@uga.eduAlgorithms and representations have been an important aspect of the work of mathematics, especially for understanding concepts and communicating ideas about concepts and mathematical relationships. They have played a key role in various mathematics standards documents, including the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. However, there have been some public misunderstandings about the standards and the role that algorithms and representations have in the teaching and learning of mathematics. In this article, I will first look at how algorithms and representations are discussed in the standards, and then examine and unpack some of the public conceptions around algorithms and representations2016-12-15T22:50:45-05:00Copyright (c) 2016 Robert J. Nannahttp://tme.journals.libs.uga.edu/index.php/tme/article/view/356The Common Core State Standards for Mathematics and College Readiness2016-12-15T22:50:47-05:00David C. Kamintme@uga.eduThe Common Core State Standards were created with college and career readiness in mind to help prepare students to succeed upon graduation from high school. In this article, I examine college readiness as it has been described by both university mathematicians and educational researchers to precisely discern what will foster success in collegiate mathematics. This idea of college readiness is compared to the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM) to assess the degree to which they align with various mathematical aspects of college readiness. There is a strong alignment between what university mathematicians and educational researchers expect of college students and what the CCSSM expects of students. Faithful CCSSM-guided instruction has the potential to foster college readiness (and ultimately college success) in K–12 students.2016-12-15T22:50:47-05:00Copyright (c) 2016 David C. Kaminhttp://tme.journals.libs.uga.edu/index.php/tme/article/view/352The Process is Just Messy: A Historical Perspective on Adoption of Innovations2016-12-15T22:50:49-05:00Chandra Hawley Orrilltme@uga.edu<div class="page" title="Page 1"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p><span>Suppose you were an alien trying to understand how people in the United States feel about the Common Core School Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM). You could look at the Internet, mass media, YouTube and all of the other venues available. Walking away from them, you would be very confused about whether the U.S. loves or hates the CCSSM, whether testing is a part of the standards, whether the standards are a requirement of No Child Left Behind, etc. In this article, I consider the adoption of the CCSSM through a historical lens. The article looks at three previous efforts to change the way students experience learning and how those efforts unfolded. Conclusions discuss those areas most important for ensuring the continued adoption of CCSSM. </span></p></div></div></div>2016-12-15T22:50:49-05:00Copyright (c) 2016 Chandra Hawley Orrillhttp://tme.journals.libs.uga.edu/index.php/tme/article/view/353Common Core State Standards for Mathematics: Love It or Hate It, Understand Those Who Don’t2016-12-15T22:50:51-05:00Patty Anne Wagnertme@uga.eduCommentary to Special Issue2016-12-15T22:50:51-05:00Copyright (c) 2016 Patty Anne Wagner