Let's Talk about the South Dakota K - 12 Proposed Math Standards, Part 3

At the SD Board of Education meeting in Pierre on February 23, 2026, Shannon Malone was tasked with introducing the proposed math standards to the board, but she gave the floor to Dr. Monte Meyerink from Northern State University, who presented this slide show. Dr. Meyerink, who was a member of both the Math Advisory Group and the Standards Review Committee, presented the research that he said helped inform the writing of the standards. The slide below illustrates his role in the standards revision process. His last bullet point leads to a question from me: Where is this draft standards progression document?

It isn’t in the current version of the proposed standards. It wasn’t in the first version that the Board of Education discussed at the October 15, 2025 meeting, and it isn’t in the second version that was discussed at the November 10, 2025 meeting. I would love to see the standards progression document, as would all SD math teachers. I think many teachers are concerned about vertical alignment in the proposed standards, so this document might alleviate that concern.

If you look closely at the first version and the second and third versions of the proposed standards, you might also notice that the Introduction section in the first version is now missing from the second and third versions. That introduction explained the “collaborative process” that they used for the revision process. I do have some issues with some statements in that introduction. For example, the last sentence of the second paragraph says, “This group included K–12 educators and administrators from districts across the state, as well as representatives from higher education educator preparation programs.” I have seen the email list of the people in the math advisory group, and I think that there was only ONE representative (Dr. Meyerink) from higher education educator preparation programs.

The last sentence at the bottom of the first page also caught my attention. It says, “In lieu of identifying essential standards, the Department is creating a supplemental progression document that clearly outlines the development of mathematical skills across grade levels, organized by specific concepts.”  That sounds like the document that is mentioned in the last bullet on Dr. Meyerink’s slide. Where is that document? Again, I really feel like it would be helpful to all interested parties to see it, and it really should be included in the proposed standards.

It was nice to finally see the detailed list of research that Dr. Meyerink provided the group. I did read through the articles. The first three articles are all about research on math intervention techniques, primarily interventions used with students who have disabilities. This confused me because state mathematics standards are written for ALL students. I am not sure why that research would be used to write standards. The last article is about Direct Instruction (DI), and while it covers research done over 50 years (which Dr. Graves mentioned in the first hearing), those years are 1966 to 2016. Also, I am not convinced that DI is the best way for students to learn math. This quote from the article stood out to me, “…DI assumes all students can learn new material when (a) they have mastered prerequisite knowledge and skills and (b) the instruction is unambiguous.”  Since COVID-19, we see many students in classrooms that have gaps in their math knowledge, so they won’t have necessarily “mastered prerequisite knowledge and skills.” This poses a huge problem for teachers across our state as they need intervention techniques that they can implement while students are learning new material.

At the October 15th hearing, Shannon Malone mentioned that the Department of Education had just received a five-year $3.7 million SPDG grant. SPDG stands for State Personnel Development Grant. These grants are awarded from the Special Education Division of the U.S. Department of Education. On the U.S. Spending website, it says that the objectives of these grants are:

To assist State educational agencies in reforming and improving their systems for personnel preparation and professional development in early intervention, educational and transition services, to improve results for children with disabilities. As used in this program, "personnel" means special education teachers, regular education teachers, principals, administrators, related services personnel, paraprofessionals, and early intervention personnel serving infants, toddlers, preschoolers, or children with disabilities, except where a particular category of personnel, such as related services personnel, is identified.

So, the grant that they say will help implement the proposed standards is a special education grant. Dr. Meyerink’s research on intervention techniques now makes more sense. Now, my hard question is: How is this all related to the Standards Revision?

I want to remind everyone of the Goal of the Math Standards stated in the Board of Education Hearing, shown in the image below. We want ALL SD students to be mathematically proficient and able to problem-solve, think critically, communicate, and reason. I feel strongly that our current standards do that.

Let's Talk about the South Dakota K - 12 Proposed Math Standards Part 2

Today I attended the SD Board of Education Standards Meeting to once again testify as an Opponent of the proposed math standards. In her rebuttal to the opposition testimony, Shannon Malone, Director of the Division of Learning and Instruction, mentioned that they have made several changes that we have suggested and that they have been listening to us. And, I agree with that. At the end, she paraphrased Governor Rhoden, from a November 22, 2025 article in The Dakota Scout when she said, "This department is committed to replacing Common Core with Common Sense."

I know what Common Core Math is, but I have no idea what is meant by Common Sense Math. Of course, I went to Google and here is what I found. There is a website called commonsensemath.com, where it seems that they are trying to sell study aids to help students learn math. I cannot really tell who runs this site, but, guess what, their help is aligned to Common Core Math. I also noticed that they did reference some NCTM articles on the site. Then I went to commonsensemath.org, which redirects to a site run by Edric Cane, who has written some books about teaching math. He has a PhD from the University of Michigan, although I don't know what content area his degree is in. He has taught math and has some interesting ideas. In addition, the Standards for Mathematical Practice came up when I googled common sense math standards. That was interesting to me since those are part of the Common Core Standards.

But, I have digressed a bit as I wonder why Governor Rhoden thinks that we need to get rid of our current standards, which are largely based on the Common Core? It is an election year and he is in a primary race for the Republican nomination in June. What if he loses the primary? We are then stuck with his "common sense math" standards if the Board approves them.

Maybe the data shows that we need new standards? Nope--the data actually shows otherwise. Table 1 shows the top twelve ranking states on the 2024 NAEP in 4th-grade math. The second column in the table explains how close each state's math standards are to Common Core. Notice that South Dakota's current math standards match Common Core more than 80%. More importantly, South Dakota's 4th graders are 9th in the nation on this assessment. 

Table 1: 2024 4th-Grade Math NAEP Top Twelve States

Then I looked at the 8th-grade math rankings, which is shown in Table 2 below. Again, South Dakota ranks 6th in the nation! Now let's look at states that are in both lists: Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Utah, North Dakota, Minnesota, New Jersey, and South Dakota. Of these seven states, five of them (71%) have math standards that match the Common Core more than 80%. So, it seems that the Common Core Standards are working just fine!

Table 2: 2024 8th-Grade Math NAEP Top Ten States

Again, I am going to ask the hard question: If our current standards are enough for our students to be placing in the top ten on the 2024 NAEP Assessment, why do they need to be rewritten? Notice that I said rewritten rather than revised. A revision would look more similar to what we have now, and the proposed ones do NOT resemble our current standards. Here are the current SD K - 12 math standards if you want to compare.

Data for the tables came from the following sites.

https://edgate.com/standards/us-comparisons 

https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/

Let's Talk about the South Dakota K - 12 Proposed Math Standards Part 1

First of all, I want to thank the members of the Math Standards Review Committee for all of the work they have done and continue to do to try to get the proposed K - 12 math standards where they need to be. They were given quite a task and having only 2 days to work together in Pierre really wasn't enough time to do what they wanted--at least some members of the committee feel that way. I know that they are continuing to work on the standards, based on public feedback. 

I also want to thank all the wonderful math educators and parents that have submitted feedback on the standards. A special shout out to the Watertown school district for 3.5 pages of feedback on the K - 4 standards! In total, there are about 25 pages of feedback, but the link above has some comments cut off so it could be longer. The proposed standards themselves only make up 37 pages so the fact that there are 25 pages of public comment is incredible, and I want to thank everyone who has contributed comments. 

However, the fact that there are 25 pages of comments on a 37-page document says something about the document itself. It seems to say that there is a lot of stuff missing! While I understand why some wanted to "simplify" the standards, it seems like now they might be too simple. 

Math is a complicated subject and it is difficult to teach well. I doubt that people will disagree with that statement. Our current standards often give examples of how to teach some of the standards, which is helpful to teachers, especially new teachers. For reference, the current standards are about 81 pages. So, we have lost 44 pages, and I feel like that is a lot of information to lose.

If we look at states that do well on the 4th grade and 8th grade math portions of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the length of their K - 12 mathematics standards documents, we see that they tend to be long, as illustrated in Table 1. I want to point out that when counting pages, I didn't count the introduction pages or appendices, just the pages with the standards and any explanations at the beginning of the grade level.

Table 1: States that score well on the NAEP and page length of their math standards

Again, math isn't easy to teach, and teachers need guidance to help students learn and achieve their full potential. Minnesota recently rewrote their standards and their new document is actually longer, not shorter. Another thing that I find troubling is that I feel like there should be more emphasis on Data Analysis in our standards because we live in a data-driven world.

Where Everyone is a Bright Spot

It has been four years since my last post on this blog. I had recently been chatting with my students in our Technology class and they encouraged me to get back to it. Apparently, I have a lot to say!

Once again, I just got back from the 2026 SD STEM Ed conference in Huron, SD. This conference was very different for me because I am currently serving as President of SDCTM, so I had a lot more responsibilities. While I was nervous, everything went well, and I stayed on script (mostly).

Some of the highlights for me were:

• Meeting RunningHorse Livingston and getting to interact with him and hear his story! Storytelling is so important for our students and I think we need to share our own stories more.
• Getting to see John Golden, one of my Twitter friends, and participate in one of his sessions, with my students and alumna.
• Hosting important conversations about the Proposed SD K - 12 Math Standards. A shout-out to the Department of Education for bravely showing up to listen to awesome math teachers.
• Watching alumni present and shine--we had three of them present. Colin Marsh had a session on Building Thinking Classrooms, where people could share their journey, asking for advice, and give tips. Leanne Holdorf did a session on how she uses Breakout Boxes in her classes--with a breakout for everyone to solve. Emily Siemonsma shared lessons that she is creating from her experience working at SURF, where students have to determine airflow at certain places underground based on the information given.
• Presenting awards to some awesome people and getting to witness awesome teachers get recognized for all they do every day!
• Hanging out with some of the best math, science, and STEM teachers in South Dakota!

I stayed an extra night so that I could watch project pitches by teachers in the STEM Leadership Cohort, funded by the E-CORE project. I am involved in the E-CORE project and I wanted to hear about projects these awesome teachers had decided to lead. And, let's just say, I was so inspired by them! They were vulnerable, creative, and so passionate about their projects. It is going to be on my list of things to do after the conference every year!

One of the teachers wanted to acknowledge others for their hard work, dedication, and inspiration, so she had one of our friends, Kevin Smith, create a thank you card. I don't think it is on the website yet, but he has some amazing items! 

I want to thank all educators and exhibitors who attended the 2026 SD STEM Ed conference. You are all bright spots, which we desperately need in education right now!