Review of the January 2016 Oklahoma Academic Standards for Mathematics

Zeev Wurman. Palo Alto, California. zeev@ieee.org

Generic Comments.
1. In multiple places the standards refer to open number line. It would be better and clearer to
change this simply to number line. First, open number line is non-standard use. Second, the
number line in elementary grades more often than not actually refers to a half open (limited
at 0 on the left) number line, if at all. Third, open number line may also refer to an empty
number line. Rather than create confusion, simply drop the open. All kind of number lines
should be available to teachers depending on the problem at hand.
2. The phrase Read, write, discuss, and represent whole numbers appears in multiple early
grades. I suggest to eliminate the discuss, it being unclear what one can cogently discuss
about a number such as 29 or 123 beyond it being one more than 28 or 122 respectively.
Instead, I would suggest to add in expanded form (e.g., 100 + 20 + 3) to the representation,
such as Read, write, and represent in expanded form whole numbers ....
This will also cleanly remove the need for clauses or standards such as in grades 2 & 3 3.N.1.2
Use place value to describe whole numbers between 1,000 and 10,000 in terms of ten thousands,
thousands, hundreds, tens and ones, including expanded form, reducing the number of
standards.
3. The development of the Algebraic Reasoning & Algebra strand is very weak throughout K-6. It
focuses almost solely on patterns and input/out rules and tables, and is deficient and unspecific
when it comes to use and evaluation of expressions, order of operations, use of parentheses,
using expressions with variables, and establishing rules of equivalence (e.g., adding equals to
both sides does not change it). It could bear a significant strengthening, while pruning some of
the repetitive focus on patterns and input/output tables.
4. Some K-7 geometry content is a bit slow. For example, area of triangle and sum of its angles are
deferred to grade 6; circles are deferred to grade 7.
5. The development of basic arithmetic skills is generally reasonable, but the standards exhibit
strong aversion to bring their development to closure using the standard algorithms. Instead,
the standards introduce spurious and confusing verbiage about efficient and generalizable
procedures and strategies in those places. This is confusing and wrong-headed when it comes
to the capstone fluency standards, they should simply specify a single efficient standard
algorithm for each operation. We dont teach people to drive with one hand tied, then with
another hand tied, and then with their legs in shackles we simply teach them to drive
normally. This needs to be corrected.
6. The high school courses get weaker as and weaker for higher grades.

Pre-K
PK.D.1.2 Use categorical data to create real-object graphs
Expectation of graphing seems to be premature for this age.

Kindergarten
K.N.1.4 Recognize without counting (subitize) the quantity of a small group of objects in organized and
random arrangements up to 10.
Clarification Statement: Subitizing is defined as instantly recognizing the quantity of a set without
having to count.
The standard is incorrect and the Clarification Statement is deficient.
Subtilizing is NOT recognizing a small group of objects in organized and random arrangements.
Rather, the automatic recognition comes from the regular arrangement. Nobody in his right
mind would expect to automatically recognize the number of objects in a random arrangement
when it is larger than three or four.
Consequently, the standard must change random arrangements to regular arrangements
and change the Clarification statement from Subitizing is defined as instantly recognizing the
quantity of a set without having to count should be augmented along the lines of Subitizing is
defined as instantly recognizing the quantity of a fixed-shape set, such as on faces of a die or
dominoes, without having to count.
K.N.3.1 Distribute equally a set of objects into at least two smaller equal sets
Dealing with fair shares at this age is unnecessarily demanding.
K.N.1 Understand the relationship between quantities and whole numbers
Comparing numbers/groups up to 10 is missing. Discuss and represent is insufficient to clearly
set expectations for comparison, which is of key importance.
K.N.2 Develop conceptual fluency with addition and subtraction (up to 10) using objects and pictures.
The addition and subtractions should be up to 20, with each *group* being up to 10.
K.GM.3.1 Develop an awareness of simple time concepts using words such as yesterday, today,
tomorrow, morning, afternoon, and night within his/her daily life.
Day of the week should probably be added here.

Grade 1
1.N.1.1 Recognize numbers to 20 without counting (subitize) the quantity of structured arrangements.
Subitizing has been found helpful for developing instant small number recognition in early age.
It has not been found helpful for anything larger than 10. In fact, it is probably damaging beyond
10 as it works against the grouping by 10 that is inherent in our decimal system. Eliminate!
1.N.1.2 Use concrete representations to describe whole numbers between 10 and 100 in terms of tens
and ones.
between 10 and 100 should be changed to up to 100. Clearly we want to have single digits
numbers too modeled as having zero tens.
1.N.1.6 Compare and order whole numbers from 0 to 100.
Adding something about estimation is indicated here. Something like Make reasonable
estimates when comparing numbers.
1.N.1.8 Use objects to represent and use words to describe the relative size of numbers, such as more
than, less than, and equal to.
The standard should also specify symbols for greater than, equal, and less than at this point,
beyond only words.
1.N.2 Solve addition and subtraction problems up to 10 in real-world and mathematical contexts.
This set of 1.N.2 standards (1.N.2.1, 1.N.2.3) should be changed to expect problems up to 20
(rather than 10), with each of the numbers being up to 10. The decomposition of numbers up to
10 has been already done in Kindergarten (K.N.1.6 and K.N.2.1) and to be closer to international
expectations 20 is required.
1.N.2.2 Determine if equations involving addition and subtraction are true.
An awkward phrasing. A better one might be simply Verify addition and subtraction equations
or, perhaps better, verify additions using subtractions, and subtractions using additions.
1.N.2.3 Demonstrate fluency with basic addition facts and related subtraction facts up to 10.
Very nice, but should be up to 20.
1.N.3.1 Partition a regular polygon using physical models and recognize when those parts are equal.
This standard is ill advised and ill defined. First, which types of polygons? Further, children at
this age tend to have little concept of area, and even less of area equivalence. Finally, no
obvious reason to push concepts of division and fractions to be so strongly and early associated

with area it will probably hurt students in the following grades when fractions must be treated
as numbers. Delete.
1.N.3.2 Partition (fair share) sets of objects into equal groupings.
Again, an unnecessarily demanding in this grade. No real reason to push it so early.
1.N.4.3 Determine the value of a collection of pennies, nickels, or dimes up to one dollar counting by
ones, fives, or tens.
Nice. But it just highlights the fact that a standard like Add and subtract with one and two-digit
numbers up to 100 is missing (add as 1.N.2.4?) Students are already working with addition of
numbers up to 100 with coins, so why not make it into a standard at this grade as high achieving
countries do?
1.GM.1.1 Identify trapezoids and hexagons by pointing to the shape when given the name.
Trapezoids should be eliminated here. The imply understanding the concept of parallelism that
is generally still unknown in this grade. Asking to recognize hexagons as having six sides is
reasonable (but why not pentagon too, in this case?) but asking for regular polygons (beyond a
square) would be unreasonable yet.
1.GM.1.2 Compose and decompose larger shapes using smaller two-dimensional shapes.
Seems a bit ambitious. Further, is ill defined what kind of shapes? Do you really expect solving
Tangram-like problems on a test? Ideally eliminate, or at least clarify and limit.
1.GM.2.3 Measure the same object/distance with units of two different lengths and describe how and
why the measurements differ.
Seems very ambitious for this grade. I would move it to second grade. In fact, it is already in the
second grade as 2.GM.2.1
1.GM.2.5 Use standard and nonstandard tools to identify volume/capacity. Compare and sort containers
that hold more, less, or the same amount.
Measuring volume is much too ambitious for first grade, particularly with standard units. I
suggest moving non-standard units at least to grade 2, and with standard units to grade 3.

Grade 2
2.N.2.1 Use the relationship between addition and subtraction to generate basic facts up to 20.
This should be moved to grade 1.
2.N.2.2 Demonstrate fluency with basic addition facts and related subtraction facts up to 20.
This should be moved to grade 1.
2.N.2.4 Use strategies and algorithms based on knowledge of place value and equality to add and
subtract two-digit numbers.
Two digit addition and subtraction should be a first grade standard. In second grade the
expectation should be handling two- and three-digit numbers.
2.N.2.5 Solve real-world and mathematical addition and subtraction problems involving whole numbers
up to 2 digits.
Should be up to 3 digits to be comparable to high achieving countries.
2.N.3.2 Construct equal-sized portions through fair sharing including length, set, and area models for
halves, thirds, and fourths.
Should have fair sharing with remainder added.
2.N.4.1 Determine the value of a collection(s) of coins up to one dollar using the cent symbol.
2.N.4.2 Use a combination of coins to represent a given amount of money up to one dollar.
These two standards should be merged. No sense in proliferating minor standards. Further, one
should consider adding dollar bills to the standards students are already expected to know
three digit numbers. Finally, this is the place to introduce decimal notation in addition to the
cent symbol.
2.GM.1.1 Recognize trapezoids and hexagons.
Essentially the same comments as to the almost identical standard in grade 1. Why are
pentagons absent? Formal parallelism is expected only in grade 4, so implicit parallelism should
not be expected prior to grade 3. Suggest supplementing with pentagons and move to grade 3.
2.GM.1.3 Compose two-dimensional shapes using triangles, squares, hexagons, trapezoids, and rhombi.
For the reasons above I would certainly avoid trapezoids and clarify to handle rhombi and
parallelograms informally (as tilted squares and rectangles). Regular pentagons and hexagons (I
assume that regular shapes are the subject of this standard) should be probably deferred to the
next grade for the same reason.

2.GM.3.1 Read and write time to the quarter-hour on an analog and digital clock. Distinguish between

a.m. and p.m.

This standard should probably be augmented with calculating time intervals in whole hours.

Grade 3
3.N.2.3 Use strategies and algorithms based on knowledge of place value and equality to fluently add
and subtract multi-digit numbers.
This standard must replace strategies and algorithms based on knowledge of place value and
equality by simply the standard algorithm, which implicitly includes place value. Without that
change students will never have a chance to develop fluency. Non-standard algorithms are not
structured for fluency.
3.N.2.5 Use addition and subtraction to solve real-world and mathematical problems involving whole
numbers. Use various strategies, including the relationship between addition and subtraction, the use of
technology, and the context of the problem to assess the reasonableness of results.
The clause the use of technology implies routine use of calculators for simple addition and
subtraction in the third grade. Unless this is removed, the expectations of fluency with manual
addition and subtraction in 3.N.2.3, so important for developing good number sense, will never
materialize. Allowing calculators may make sense once fluencies with basic number operations
are achieved. In other words, in grade 6 or above.
3.N.2.6 Represent division facts by using a variety of approaches, such as repeated subtraction, equal
sharing and forming equal groups.
Should add with remainder to equal sharing and forming equal groups.
3.N.2.8 Use strategies and algorithms based on knowledge of place value, equality and properties of
addition and multiplication to multiply a two-digit number by a one-digit number.
Should include at least 2-digit by 2-digit numbers to match international high achievers.
3.N.3.3 Recognize unit fractions and use them to compose and decompose fractions related to the same
whole. Use the numerator to describe the number of parts and the denominator to describe the number
of partitions.
3.N.3.4 Use models and number lines to order and compare fractions that are related to the same whole.
Both the standards use the phrase related to the same whole. This is mathematically
confusing and formulaic. Comparison of the quantities that the fractions represent is valid only if
both refer to the same whole (e.g., is of a 20 gallon tank bigger or smaller than 1/3 of a 10
gallon tank is not obvious just comparing the fractions, because the subject is a quantity, not the
fraction itself). In contrast, when comparing fractions without a specific reference, in other

words fractions as numbers both on or off the number line, the underlying reference is always
the same 1 and hence repeatedly mentioning that they have to be related to the same
whole is unnecessary and confusing. 1/3 is *always* bigger than on the number line, the
same way that 6 is always bigger than 5. Its only when we relate the numbers to external
references, for example do 5 tanks of 20 gallons hold more water than 6 tanks of 10 gallons, that
related to the same whole comes into play. But we dont normally respond to which is bigger,
5 or 6? with the question 5 or 6 of what?
With standards we should routinely focus on the numeric value of fractions, similarly to what we
do with numbers. Only when it comes to word problem or measurements that we start paying
attention to units. Please remove related to the same whole here.
3.N.4 Determine the value of a set of coins or bills.
These standards (3.N.4.1, 3.N.4.2) should include representing the coins and sums in both
decimal and common fraction notations, to develop this connection. Otherwise the whole
buildup of manipulating money from grade 1 and on is completely wasted.
3.GM.2.5 Using common benchmarks, estimate the lengths (customary and metric) of a variety of
objects.
3.GM.2.6 Use an analog thermometer to determine temperature to the nearest degree in Fahrenheit
and Celsius.
This is the place to add a standards like Convert between simple customary and metric units
or express simple unit conversions in symbolic form such as a feet = a 12 inches

Grade 4
4.N.1.1 Demonstrate fluency with multiplication and division facts with factors up to 12.
I assume demonstrate fluency in this context means memorize. You may as well say so to
avoid misunderstandings. Grade 3 (3.N.2.2) already requires fluency up to 10, and memorizing
the multiplication table means it is as useful for multiplication as for division. Here it is extended
to 12. There is absolutely no mathematical reason to expect fluent memorization to 12 our
system is base-10. No sense in proliferating marginal and unnecessary standards.
4.N.1.3 Multiply 3-digit by 1-digit or a 2-digit by 2-digit whole numbers, using efficient and generalizable
procedures and strategies, based on knowledge of place value, including but not limited to standard
algorithms.
The underlines text is detrimental. There is no sense in developing multiple efficient and
generalizable procedures and strategies. Learn one, and learn it well. Anything else is a waste
of time and of memorization. Multiple strategies and procedures may have been useful
during development of understanding of multiplication, but when comes to routine application,

a single algorithm is plenty. Further, there is one standard algorithm, whatever some people
may argue. The clearly came across during the presidential National Mathematics Advisory
Panel that carefully chose to use the term the standard algorithm for each of addition,
subtraction, multiplication and division. Consequently, the word algorithm should be in
singular, not in plural. Oklahoma would do well to follow the advice of experts.
4.N.1.5 Solve multi-step real-world and mathematical problems requiring the use of addition,
subtraction, and multiplication of multi-digit whole numbers. Use various strategies, including the
relationship between operations, the use of appropriate technology, and the context of the problem to
assess the reasonableness of results.
As already mentioned, if calculators are allowed before fluency is acquired, fluency will never be
acquired. Defer them to grade 6 and up. The underlines clause should be removed. For the same
reason, the clause Explore larger numbers using technology to investigate patterns in 4.N.1.4
is dangerous as it opens up the classroom for calculators for a rather meaningless and ill-defined
activity (explore larger numbers is not a standard!) and should be removed too.
4.N.2.4 Use fraction models to add and subtract fractions with like denominators in real-world and
mathematical situations.
Nothing wrong with this standard but it almost begs for a parallel standard to add and subtract
decimals to two decimal places, as decimals are already expected in neighboring standards. Such
a standard should be added.

Grade 5
5.N.1.2 Divide multi-digit numbers, by one- and two-digit divisors, using efficient and generalizable
procedures, based on knowledge of place value, including standard algorithms.
As in grade 4 regrading multiplication, this standards spurious and detrimental addition of the
underlined text (efficient and generalizable procedures, based on knowledge of place value)
should be eliminated. All division algorithms in elementary school are place-value based so no
need even to mention it, and teaching multiple efficient algorithms is simply unhelpful and
confusing. There is a single standard algorithm (with minor trivial variations) and nobody in sane
mind would learn more than one anyway. Even if multiple strategies may be helpful to the
process of learning division, multiple algorithms to efficiently perform division are actually
detrimental.
5.N.1.4 Solve real-world and mathematical problems requiring addition, subtraction, multiplication, and
division of multi-digit whole numbers. Use various strategies, including the inverse relationships between
operations, the use of technology, and the context of the problem to assess the reasonableness of
results.
As mentioned before, use of calculators should be deferred to at least grade 6. Further, their use
in this context is disingenuous. Does anyone truly believe that even a single student will perform

a multi-digit calculation manually with calculator at hand, and then use the calculator only to
check the result?
5.GM.2.3 Find the perimeter of polygons and create arguments for reasonable values for the perimeter
of shapes that include curves.
It seems inappropriate to include curves in this grade. Students have not studied anything yet
about circles (grade 7 content) and the whole notion of approximations cannot be developed to
address a small clause of a minor standard. This clause should be deleted.
5.GM.3.1 Measure and compare angles according to size.
The word according is out of place. Comparing angles is inherently by size. Perhaps that what
was meant.
5.GM.3.2 Choose an appropriate instrument and measure the length of an object to the nearest whole
centimeter or 1/16-inch.
It seems strange to expect a precision of 1/16 inch (about 1.5 mm) but only of one whole
centimeter. The standard should be changed to one millimeter.

Grade 6
6.N.2.1 Estimate solutions to addition and subtraction of integers problems in order to assess the
reasonableness of results.
6.N.2.2 Illustrate addition and subtraction of integers using a variety of representations.
6.N.2.3 Add and subtract integers; use efficient and generalizable procedures including but not limited to
standard algorithms.
These three standards seem not to belong here, as they repeat of earlier grades skills. Students
in grades 6 need not waste time and repeat addition and subtraction of integers. Need to be
deleted.
6.N.4.3 Multiply and divide fractions and decimals using efficient and generalizable procedures.
Nothing wrong with this standard except for its avoidance of simply saying using standard
algorithms instead of the efficient and generalizable procedures whatever else they may be.
Algorithms in plural in this case, as we speak of both multiplication and division and of both
fractions and decimals.
6.GM.1.1 Develop and use formulas for the area of squares and parallelograms using a variety of
methods including but not limited to the standard algorithm.
The underlined clause makes the standard incoherent. It is about developing formulas for area
of squares and parallelograms. It has nothing to do with standard algorithms or variety of

methods.
Incidentally, area of squares and rectangles was already developed in grade 3 (3.GM.2.2), and
used extensively in grade 4 (4.GM.2.2) and 5 (5.GM.2.2). What is the reason to repeat this
knowledge here only for squares and not even for rectangles is beyond my imagination.
6.GM.1.2 Develop and use formulas to determine the area of triangles.
No real issue with this standard (except that in high achieving countries it is frequently taught in
fifth grade) but in view of the problem with the previous standard (5.GM.1.1) it would be
natural to extend it to Develop and use formulas to determine the area of triangles and
parallelograms and discard 6.GM.2.1. In any case studying the area of triangles tends to come
before parallelograms.
6.GM.4 Use translations, reflections, and rotations to establish congruency and understand symmetries.
This whole set of 4 standards (6.GM.4.1-4) is premature at this grade. Students have little notion
of distance in the plane. In addition to attempting proof of congruence based on experimental
method with a track record of failure use of rigid motions such as rotation, translation, and
reflection this is really unnecessary at this grade.
Note: Negative numbers are introduced indirectly in this grade through the use of rational numbers
and plots in the four quadrants. Surely the introduction of negative numbers deserves a standard or
two on its own, to clearly indicate the new content to both teachers and students.

Grade 7
7.N.2.1 Estimate solutions to multiplication and division of integers in order to assess the reasonableness
of results.
7.N.2.2 Illustrate multiplication and division of integers using a variety of representations.
7.N.2.3 Solve real-world and mathematical problems involving addition, subtraction, multiplication and
division of rational numbers; use efficient and generalizable procedures including but not limited to
standard algorithms.
These three standards tediously and unnecessarily repeat previous grade skills. Should be
eliminated.
7.A.3.1 Write and solve problems leading to linear equations with one variable in the form px+q=r and
p(x+q)=r, where p,q, and r are rational numbers.
Probably needs the addition of graph as in Write, solve, and graph similar to the parallel
standard 7.A.3.2 that deals with inequalities.
7.A.3.2 Represent, write, solve, and graph problems leading to linear inequalities with one variable in the
form x+p > q and x+p < q, where p and q are nonnegative rational numbers.

There is no good reason for p and q to be non-negative. The nonnegative should be removed.

Pre Algebra
PA.A.1.3 Identify a function as linear if it can be expressed in the form y=mx+b or if its graph is a straight
line.
This may be the place to develop the notion of slope of linear function a bit more and tie it to
similar triangles.
PA.A.2.4 Predict the effect on the graph of a linear function when the slope or y-intercept changes. Use
appropriate tools to examine these effects.
It seems ill-advised to implicitly expect the use of graphing calculator in this context for
something that is so trivially shown manually on any graph paper, and where the manual
solution is much more effective and retained for a long time. Remove the underlined sentence.
Note: The standards for Pre-Algebra speak in generic fashion about appropriate problems to solve, but
do not offer specific examples. They would benefit from offering examples of the types of problems
than need to be tackled, such as profits and discounts, rates, average speeds, distance and time, and
direct variations.

Algebra 1
A1.A.3.5 Recognize that arithmetic sequences are linear using equations, tables, graphs, and verbal
descriptions. Use the pattern, find the next term.
A1.A.3.6 Recognize that geometric sequences are exponential using equations, tables, graphs and verbal
descriptions. Given the formula f(x)=a(r)x find the next term and define the meaning of a and r within the
context of the problem.
No expectation of students developing or knowing sum formulas of such sequences, neither in
Algebra 1 nor in Algebra 2.
Note: Algebra 1 includes extensive treatment of linear functions, equations, and inequalities, but it
has essentially no treatment, even in an introductory way, to quadratic functions. This makes for a
somewhat weak Algebra 1 course.

Geometry
G.RL.1.2 Analyze and draw conclusions based on a set of conditions using inductive and deductive
reasoning. Recognize the logical relationships between a conditional statement and its inverse, converse,
and contrapositive.
It is unclear what kind of inductive reasoning one should use in a Geometry class. Clarify or
eliminate.

G.2D.1.8 Construct logical arguments to prove triangle congruence (SSS, SAS, ASA, AAS and HL) and
triangle similarity (AA, SSS, SAS).
There is almost complete absence of proofs in this algebra. Most standards start with Apply the
properties of or Solve/Use . Only the single standard above starts with Construct logical
arguments to prove, and it address only the most elementary proofs of congruence. It seems
rather vacuous and boring Geometry course when students essentially prove nothing and are
just fed formulas and relations to use.
Note: There is an almost complete absence of proofs in these Geometry standards. There is a complete
absence of constructions using compass and straightedge. There is a distinct paucity of theorems
regarding triangles involving medians, heights, or angle bisectors. All in all this set of standards
describes a rather low level course.

Algebra 2
A2.A.1.4 Solve polynomial equations with real roots using various methods and tools that may include
factoring, polynomial division, synthetic division, graphing calculators or other appropriate technology.
Seems the right place to introduce the Rational Root Theorem, yet it is missing here.
A2.A.1.6 Solve common and natural logarithmic equations using the properties of logarithms.
There is no standard for development of logarithms and their properties, just this one that
implies such knowledge. Should be added.
A2.A.1.7 Solve real-world and mathematical problems that can be modeled using arithmetic or finite
geometric sequences or series given the nth terms and sum formulas. Graphing calculators or other
appropriate technology may be used.
Sum of arithmetic and geometric sequences is never developed, and it should be. This standard
assumes simply using it in a rote manner when formulas are given. A shame.
A2.A.1.9 Solve systems of equations containing one linear equation and one quadratic equation using
tools that may include graphing calculators or other appropriate technology.
A parallel standard expecting solution of a system of inequalities, one linear and one quadratic,
is missing.
Note: This set of Algebra 2 standards does not include conic sections; does not include anything on
polar coordinates nor on functional representation in polar coordinates; does not include sums of
arithmetic and geometric sequences, both finite and infinite; does not include mathematical induction;
does not address permutations and combinations Strong Algebra 2 courses include most, if not all, of
them. All in all, this set of standards describes a weak Algebra 2 course.