BY: NATASHA JASPERSON
Common Core was developed to set national scholastic English and mathematics standards for the United States. Until its introduction, states set their own standards, which varied from state to state and were not always in line with international standards and benchmarks. Despite being introduced in 2010, scores have not significantly increased. Only 15 states saw a slight increase in the 2024 NAEP test that every state takes each year. Freedom in Education has developed the Archimedes Math Standards to address this educational crisis.
Archimedes Math Standards provide standards that are clear, concise, and easily adoptable by states to ensure their students can compete nationally and internationally. These standards seek to provide a structured and adaptable framework that accommodates diverse learning styles and local educational priorities. This comparison aims to evaluate Common Core Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM) and Archimedes Math Standards (AMS) based on four critical factors: clarity of expectations, effectiveness in student outcomes, financial implications, and the level of control educators and local districts have over curriculum decisions.
CCSSM was implemented to create a standardized framework for mathematics education across states to ensure consistency in students’ learning at each grade level. The standards emphasize conceptual understanding rather than rote memorization. This has resulted in many students not memorizing the multiplication tables. The goal is for students to understand the why behind mathematical processes instead of simply following procedures. A key goal of CCSSM is to develop problem-solving and critical thinking skills so students can apply mathematical reasoning in real-world situations. However, the approach has been widely criticized for its complexity, the challenges it poses for both students and teachers, and the increased difficulty in aligning instructional methods with standardized assessments. Critics argue that while the standards aim to deepen understanding, they often lead to confusion and frustration, particularly for parents unfamiliar with the new methodologies.
On the other hand, AMS was created to provide an alternative to Common Core Math Standards. They are clear, concise, and internationally aligned, ensuring students receive a high-quality mathematics education that meets global benchmarks. Unlike Common Core, these standards prioritize straightforward guidelines that are easy for educators to implement and for students to follow. One of the primary goals of Archimedes Math Standards is the ease of adoption, minimizing the implementation hurdles that often accompany new educational frameworks. By reducing unnecessary complexity, these standards allow teachers to focus on effective instruction rather than navigating complicated methodologies. The Archimedes approach balances conceptual learning and foundational skills, recognizing the importance of problem-solving and procedural fluency. While fostering a deep mathematical understanding, it also values traditional techniques such as the memorization of essential facts and formulas, ensuring students build a strong mathematical foundation. AMS better prepares students for advanced mathematics.
One of the defining features of Common Core Math Standards is its shift away from rote memorization toward a focus on conceptual understanding. The intention is to help students grasp the “why” behind mathematical operations rather than simply memorizing formulas and procedures. Without sufficient emphasis on memorization, students may struggle with basic math facts, such as multiplication tables and standard algorithms, which are essential for efficiency and accuracy in more advanced math.
The lack of automatic recall for basic operations can create long-term difficulties in higher-level math. When students must repeatedly derive or calculate simple facts instead of recalling them instantly, it slows down problem-solving and can lead to frustration. This delay affects test performance and hinders students’ ability to engage with more complex mathematical concepts that require fluency in fundamental operations. As a result, critics argue that de-emphasizing memorization under Common Core has contributed to declining math proficiency, leaving many students ill-prepared for algebra, calculus, and other advanced subjects.
Nathan Gwinn of Freedom in Education said, “The reason Archimedes is so straightforward is because we just want to get back to level straightforward math standards. The second to that was we just go back to what we know works instead of doing all this kind of new age stuff that just doesn’t work.”
One of the main criticisms of Common Core standards is their ambiguity, which leads to inconsistent interpretations among educators, schools, and districts. The broad and often vague language leaves teachers without clear instructional guidance, resulting in varied approaches to teaching fundamental concepts. This lack of specificity is especially problematic in mathematics, where students rely on a structured progression of skills. Without a consistent framework, since students struggle to grasp key principles, creating gaps in their understanding that can hinder future learning.
The ambiguity also affects parents, who may struggle to support their children’s education at home. Since Common Core often introduces concepts in unfamiliar ways, parents may struggle to help with homework or reinforce lessons effectively. This confusion can lead to frustration for students and parents, impacting a child’s confidence and academic progress. Instead of promoting a uniform and effective educational experience, the vague nature of the standards contributes to disparities in learning outcomes.
The federal government played a significant role in pushing for the national adoption of Common Core, effectively reducing state autonomy over education. National standards were dictated by the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). While states were not legally required to adopt Common Core, the federal government incentivized compliance through programs like Race to the Top and No Child Left Behind, which tied funding and waivers to their adoption. This led to widespread concerns about an unfunded mandate, as states were left to cover most of the costs associated with implementing the standards, including new curricula, teacher training, and updated testing systems. 46 states initially adopted CCSS, although implementation has not been uniform. To date, 12 states have introduced legislation to repeal the standards outright, and five have since withdrawn from the standards altogether.
Implementing Common Core has placed a significant financial burden on state and local governments, with an estimated $80 billion spent nationwide on training, testing, and instructional materials. This massive expenditure has led many states to reconsider the long-term sustainability of the standards. One of the most expensive aspects has been the necessary technology upgrades, which accounted for $6.87 billion in the first seven years. Schools were required to update computer systems and internet infrastructure to accommodate online assessments, a major shift from previous paper-based testing methods.
In addition to technology costs, $5.26 billion was spent on professional development to train educators in the new teaching methods and curriculum changes. Teachers needed extensive training to align their instruction with Common Core. This required workshops, seminars, and ongoing support. The transition also necessitated $2.47 billion for new textbooks and instructional materials, as many existing resources did not align with the updated standards. Another $1.24 billion went toward developing and administering Common Core-aligned assessments, adding further financial strain to school districts. With many states already facing budget constraints, the high cost of implementation has forced some to reconsider their commitment to Common Core, with several opting to modify or abandon the standards altogether.
AMS offers a significant advantage over Common Core Math by prioritizing clarity and conciseness in mathematical instruction. With clearly defined expectations at each grade level, these standards eliminate ambiguity, ensuring that teachers and students precisely understand learning objectives. This structured approach makes lesson planning more straightforward for educators while providing students with a more intuitive and cohesive learning experience. AMS enhances comprehension and mastery by removing unnecessary complexity, allowing for a more effective and focused mathematics education.
The Archimedes Math Standards are strategically aligned with international benchmarks, particularly reflecting the rigor of Singapore’s math curriculum. By incorporating proven methods from one of the top-performing countries in math education, these standards emphasize deep conceptual understanding, problem-solving skills, and mastery of foundational concepts. This alignment ensures that students excel in national assessments and are globally competitive, equipping them with the skills needed to thrive in an increasingly math-driven world. Internationally, the United States performs better in science—ranking 7th out of 37 OECD countries—and in computer and information literacy, where it ranks 5th among 14 participating education systems, than it does in mathematics literacy, where it places 25th out of 37 OECD countries.
Jon Gregg with Freedom in Education said, Archimedes Math Standards are certainly trying to make use of some of the practices that we see in countries that are more competitive on the math fronts. We’ve tried to adopt some of the practices that we see in countries like Korea, Finland, and Singapore.”
Archimedes Math Standards provide a cost-effective and easily adoptable alternative to Common Core, minimizing transition costs for schools and districts. Common Core often requires extensive new training, materials, and technology upgrades. In contrast, AMS leverages existing resources, allowing educators to implement them without the burden of expensive overhauls. AMS helps schools allocate funds more efficiently while maintaining a rigorous and practical math curriculum by focusing on practical, high-quality instruction rather than excessive standardized testing and digital requirements.
Archimedes Math Standards offer a balanced approach to learning, combining conceptual understanding with essential foundational memorization. This ensures that students grasp the “why” behind mathematical concepts but also develop fluency in fundamental operations like addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. By reinforcing both critical thinking and procedural skills, these standards prepare students for advanced mathematics and ensures they have the necessary groundwork for real-world problem-solving and academic success.
The Archimedes Math Standards offer a superior alternative to Common Core Math by addressing their key shortcomings: vagueness, high costs, and reduced local control. Unlike Common Core Math, these standards provide clear and concise expectations, making them easier to implement while ensuring students gain a strong mathematical foundation. Their cost-effective nature minimizes financial strain on schools, and their alignment with top international curricula helps prepare students for global competitiveness. Transitioning to Archimedes Math Standards presents a valuable opportunity to establish a math education framework that prioritizes clarity, effectiveness, and fiscal responsibility, ultimately fostering better outcomes for students and educators alike.
