By Dave Kung, Director of Policy; Lindsay Perlmutter Fitzpatrick, Policy and Implementation Lead

A high school junior asks you for some expert advice. They’re choosing classes for their last year of high school. When it comes to math, what should they do? Your first instinct might be to answer this question based on your own experience. But what if you turned to research to give an answer based on data? What if you learned more about the student’s background and aspirations? What would you tell them based on that information?

First of all, what’s the student’s goal? While there are many different paths to a successful and happy professional life, those varied routes almost always include an industry-recognized credential or a two- or four-year degree. Without one of those, students rarely earn a living wage; in Central Texas, research pegs their chances at just 12%. While different degree areas have different financial benefits, in general more education leads to greater earnings. And completing a four-year degree remains a good investment even at a time when college costs have soared. The median income for a family headed by someone with a four-year degree is roughly double what it is for a family headed by someone with a lower level of education. While more money certainly doesn’t guarantee anything, people who stay in school longer tend to be happier and healthier.

So...great. A postsecondary degree is an important goal to shoot for. But while a bachelor’s degree might be the norm in some communities, it’s worth remembering that in 2019, just 36% of U.S. adults over 25 had a bachelor’s degree

What could your young friend do to make a bachelor’s degree more likely?

One thing we’re seeing across the country is that a surprising number of students aren’t taking any math in their senior year, according to a report on student course taking patterns by state (produced in collaboration with Student Achievement Partners and ESG.) That’s probably to be expected in states where high school graduation only requires just 2 or 3 years of math. In Oregon, where 3 years of math are required, a full 44% of high school seniors aren’t taking any math. In California, the state-requirement is only 2 years but many school districts require more, leading to about a quarter of seniors not taking any math.

More surprising is what happens in states that do require 4 years. In New Mexico, enough students get high school credit for their 8th grade math, or double up at some point in high school, so that more than a quarter of seniors still don’t take any math that year. Only in a state like Georgia, where 4 credits of math are required and math is required every year, do we see nearly 100% of seniors enrolled in math.

So in many states, lots of students aren’t taking any math in their senior year. Why does this matter? Many mathematicians might just feel a little sad—and be worried about what doors they might be closing. Does this one factor really hinder a student’s likelihood of reaching the goal of earning a bachelor’s degree? Yes, in fact, it does. There’s increasingly solid evidence that our first piece of advice to our inquisitive high school junior should be to take some math as a senior.

In California, high school seniors taking a math course had increases in college attendance and persistence into their second year of college, especially at four-year institutions. In Texas, researchers at the REDEE center studied the comprehensive ERC data set that includes all public schools (K–12 and higher ed) in Texas. Their unpublished analysis shows that, all other things being equal, the choice to take a senior-year math course increases the chances that a student will earn a bachelor’s degree within 6 years by an amazing 15%.

In both cases, these researchers took pains to adjust for as many variables as they could. Both studies involved pairing students with similar backgrounds (e.g., previous coursework, socioeconomic status, gender, race, parents’ educational attainment). These so-called statistical twins were identical in every measurable way except that one student took a senior-level math class and one didn’t. These studies isolated the impact of that one choice. They presented convincing evidence of a causal relationship between senior-year math course taking and increased postsecondary persistence and success.

OK, so evidence-based advice to our young friend should include taking a senior-level math course. Which one should it be? In too many places around the country, there’s just one choice: whatever class is next on the path toward calculus. But there’s a growing awareness that this one-size-fits-all approach isn’t serving students well.

The MAA and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), in their joint position statement on calculus, state that, “A high school calculus course should not be the singular end goal of the PK–12 mathematics curriculum at the expense of providing a broad spectrum of mathematical preparation.” Even among those who go on to a four-year program, only about one-third of them will need the content of a calculus course. 

Is it really OK for students to choose a path other than the most well-trodden one toward Calculus?  Both studies above shed light on the impact of which math courses seniors choose. In the California study, it didn’t matter whether that course was further along the path toward calculus (i.e., Algebra II or precalculus) or in statistics. In Texas, results for students taking precalculus or a course coded as Independent Study (most frequently, a course in mathematical modeling) had similar outcomes, with about the same increased chances of completing a bachelor’s degree (17% and 15%).

It’s worth noting that in both cases, the positive impact of taking a senior-year math course didn’t extend to an available quantitative reasoning course that’s widely seen as remedial (Advanced Quantitative Reasoning in Texas, Transition to College Mathematics and Statistics in California). While there’s a growing push for QR content for all students, we clearly have work to do to make sure that high school QR courses offer rigorous content aligned to higher ed counterparts. As many have rightly pointed out, unless counseling and advising systems are reformed, under-resourced students (disproportionately Black and Latino) will be shuffled off into these “lesser” options, as they currently are in many places.

No matter if courses are called Math for Liberal Arts, Quantitative Reasoning, or Quantitative Literacy, these options should arm students with skills and knowledge critical for success in many fields and for productive and informed engagement in a democratic society. And no STEM-intending student should be placed in such courses instead of ones that help them reach their goals. The mathematics community needs to come together to support the improvement of advising practices, the consistency of the content, and the pedagogical practices used in these courses.

Having looked into this research, you can now give research-based advice to the high school junior: Take math in your senior year, and, if possible, make sure it’s a course that aligns with your aspirations.

But is that really the end of the story? Why did this junior need to come to us for advice anyway? Shouldn’t our educational systems be structured so the default for every student is what we know works, with more high school seniors taking math courses that align with their aspirations and postsecondary options?

That sort of systemic work is exactly what 21 states are tackling as part of the Launch Years Initiative. Teams of state-level administrators, K–12 math leads, and college faculty are working to put in place math options in the transition from high school to postsecondary education that align with students’ goals and aspirations. In addition, 11 national organizations are collaborating as part of the Launch Years Math Organizations Leadership Network (LY-MathLN), supporting state-level work and setting a national agenda that reinforces that work.

What can you, as an individual, do aside from giving informed advice to those around you? Plenty! These deep systemic issues require all of us to chip in and do our part with the systems we have a hand in.

Make sure your department offers multiple ways of satisfying a math requirement, with different options aligning with different programs of study. Talk with those doing the advising— both on your campus and in the dual credit space—to make sure they are giving advice that aligns with students’ aspirations. Get your admissions office to issue clear guidance (like Harvard and the University of Chicago have done), so students and families know that the path to calculus isn’t a requirement for everyone. Finally, make sure your institution is tracking data disaggregated by race, gender, and income so each and every student has access to and success in mathematics that aligns with their aspirations.

Working together at the state, local, and institution levels, we can ensure all students get the right advice about choosing math options that will help them reach their highest aspirations.

Dave Kung leads the policy work at the Charles A. Dana Center, which includes in-depth policy analysis and the development of tools and briefs for systems, regions, and states. He will soon wrap up his ninth and last years director of MAA Project NExT, a professional development program serving math faculty early in their careers.

Lindsay Fitzpatrick, the other half of the small-but-mighty Dana Center Policy Team, serves as policy and implementation lead. A Dana Center 10-year veteran, she has led many initiatives working to align K–12 and higher education systems at the state and local levels to ensure more equitable access to and success in advanced mathematics. She currently works with seven states as part of the Launch Years Initiative and the Central Texas region.