A Rationale for the Junior-Senior Secondary Mathematics Curriculum 2.0
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes a rationale that supports a renewal of our predominantly 19th century curriculum for Grades 7–12, identified as Mathematics 1.0. It was originally established in the mid 1800s to prepare learners mostly from upper-class families to succeed in a post-industrial society. Today’s digital revolution has changed society remarkably, and the variety of learners has certainly broadened, but Mathematics 1.0 fundamentally remains the same Plato-based (Platonist) curriculum due to its social-political power, which is documented in the article. The major changes to society’s culture and the composition of learners have caused faults in Mathematics 1.0 (e.g., a relevance deficit). For the majority of learners, school mathematics has mostly become an obsolete, inequitable, and harmful rite-of-passage into adulthood, to varying degrees. A renewed curriculum, Mathematics 2.0, is rationalized and specific suggestions are offered. The minority of learners who successfully pursue mathematics to varying degrees would experience small changes in their new Mathematics 1.2. Keywords: school mathematics, humanistic, curriculum differentiation, relevance
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".