An Evolution of Mathematics Curriculum

In today’s fast-changing world, education systems are under increasing pressure to adapt. Young people need to be equipped with the necessary competencies to thrive as active and responsible citizens in an uncertain and imbalanced world, and to be prepared to enter a rapidly changing workforce. To help them thrive as they navigate through uncertainty and change, students need an education that equips them with adequate knowledge, skills, attitudes and values to ensure individual, collective and planetary well-being (OECD, 2020[1]). Mathematical knowledge and the ability to apply that knowledge across the changing contexts encountered in daily life and work are a critical part of that education.

Mathematics knowledge and related competencies are essential to economic growth, social well-being and equity. As societies continue to change, rapidly, profoundly and often unpredictably, students need to be equipped with the necessary skills to navigate this evolving landscape. A strong foundation in mathematics and its applications will empower students to confidently tackle challenges in both work and life. The ability to understand and apply mathematical concepts will help individuals navigate the changing landscape of work and develop adaptable and transferable skills to remain competitive and innovative.

Rapid technological advancements are reshaping the landscape of work, requiring a new range of mathematical knowledge, skills, attitudes and values. The shift from traditional manufacturing to automation and artificial intelligence (AI) has already revolutionised industries worldwide. Jobs centred on routine and repetitive tasks have increasingly been taken over by machines, pushing human workers to adapt to more complex, analytical roles. As we move deeper into the digital age, even professional sectors such as accounting, law and finance – historically reliant on human expertise – are being disrupted by automation, artificial intelligence and machine learning (OECD, 2023[2]; Lassébie and Quintini, 2022[3]). Some examples of current trends across various industries and fields include the following:

• For workers in industries that were once reliant on manual labour or repetitive tasks, the need to develop new competencies is now critical.

• Many jobs, such as those in programming, robotics and systems management, now require employees to understand and manage digital tools that perform complex processes. Fields like data science, artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning are driving this change by automating analysis and decision-making processes. For instance, data science underpins much of the decision making across sectors, from optimising supply chains in logistics to personalising user experiences in e-commerce and media (Jahani, Jain and Ivanov, 2023[4]; Nadikattu, 2020[5]). Also, in finance, AI-driven algorithms now handle tasks like predictive modelling for investment strategies and real-time fraud detection (Javaid, 2024[6]; Bello and Olufemi, 2024[7]), while AI in healthcare uses machine learning to diagnose diseases and personalise treatment plans (Johnson et al., 2020[8]).

• Cybersecurity is emerging as a critical area where mathematical models, statistical algorithms and encryption techniques are used to safeguard data, detect breaches and protect digital infrastructures from increasingly sophisticated threats (Shah, 2022[9]).

• In industries like renewable energy, mathematical models help improve the efficiency of energy grids and forecast energy consumption, while in autonomous vehicles, algorithms relying on geometry, calculus and probability drive innovation (Ahmad, Zhang and Yan, 2020[10]; Mostafa, Ramadan and Elfarouk, 2022[11]; Wu, Bayen and Mehta, 2018[12]).

Today, workers are expected to have competencies in data analysis, problem solving and technical literacy to thrive in increasingly automated environments (OECD, 2022[13]). Mathematical and statistical literacy not only support the advancement of digital technologies but are also instrumental for the end-users in many fields, equipping workers to navigate and shape the future of highly complex, technology-driven industries.

Projected population ageing across OECD countries is expected to have far-reaching implications for economic growth, productivity, inequality within and between generations, and the sustainability of public finances. Mathematic competencies are critical to navigating challenges related to demographic change:

• Health care is increasingly moving towards a digital platform to increase capacity of care as well as control costs.

• Medical diagnoses are being driven by algorithms, especially in emergency centres and hospitals. The algorithms are founded on interrogation of large data sets and calculation of probabilities for relative risk.

• Drug efficacy is researched using randomised control trials that employ statistical procedures to establish the benefits of treatments, and the risks of side effects.

Citizens increasingly need to be digitally literate to effectively navigate healthcare systems. Individuals are now more responsible than in past for evaluating their own health data to make informed decisions about treatments, medications and surgeries. This self-evaluation requires an ability to assess probabilities, determine medication dosages, consider potential side effects, and weigh the likelihood of improved quality of life outcomes from treatments. Essential competencies, such as problem solving, decision-making in uncertain or probabilistic contexts, understanding the limitations of real-world data, and critical thinking, are crucial for all citizens to manage their healthcare.

The OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030 position paper sets out that the foremost challenge brought about by rapidly and profoundly changing societies is environmental, calling for urgent action and adaptation to address the issue of climate change and the depletion of natural resources (OECD, 2018[14]). Mathematics plays a crucial role in addressing complex environmental challenges:

• Increasingly, data-based information featuring statistics constructed using mathematical tools (e.g. algorithms) is used to inform people about issues such as climate change or pandemics.

• Mathematical models, or representations of real-world phenomena using mathematical and statistical frameworks, are instrumental in predicting societal and environmental outcomes and evaluating potential consequences without the need for real-world experimentation. For example, stochastic modelling has been used to predict the spread of infectious diseases, such as COVID-19, and to assess the impact of various policy interventions prior to their implementation (He, Tang and Rong, 2020[15]).

• Similarly, calculus models are applied in engineering to solve problems such as temperature regulation, structural design and satellite trajectory prediction. Such use of mathematics offers critical insight into how societies can mitigate environmental and technological challenges.

Beyond basic calculations and computations, mathematics literacy is fundamental in analysing and solving issues like population growth, waste production, resource scarcity and pollution. Skills like understanding percentages and ratios, and interpreting data in tables, charts and graphs are crucial for quantifying these problems and enabling informed action (Schwartz, 2010[16]).

Inequity is not a new phenomenon, but the challenge today and for the future is that it is growing in many OECD countries. (United Nations, 2015[17]). Rapid advancements in science and technology may exacerbate social and economic inequalities if not carefully managed.

• Highly skilled workers with transversal skills benefit from technological advances, while low-skilled workers face job displacement and stagnant wages, exacerbating income inequality. For instance, automation disproportionately affects sectors like manufacturing, widening the wage gap (World Economic Forum, 2020[18]; World Economic Forum, 2020[19]).

• Access to quality education is increasingly determined by economic and social status. In many OECD countries, the digital divide, i.e. unequal access to technology and the internet, limits learning opportunities for disadvantaged students, further entrenching educational inequalities. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted how remote learning disproportionately affected students from low-income households (OECD, 2020[20]).

• In many OECD countries, individuals with higher incomes benefit more from cutting-edge treatments, while lower-income populations continue to face barriers to quality healthcare (World Health Organization, 2021[21]; OECD, 2021[22]).

• The effects of climate change disproportionately impact poorer communities and nations, both within OECD countries and globally. Wealthier populations have more resources to mitigate the impacts of climate change, while vulnerable groups bear the brunt of extreme weather events, food insecurity and health risks. This growing environmental inequity highlights the need for inclusive policies ( (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2017[23]; United Nations Development Programme, 2021[24]; United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2021[25])).

Mathematics is crucial for understanding global issues, such as the unequal distribution of resources and wealth both within and across countries, as well as the broader impacts, both positive and negative, of a global economic environment. To address disparities in economic, social and educational opportunities, building strong mathematical foundations for all children from the early years is essential. This foundation equips individuals with the skills needed to improve outcomes and life skills, particularly in a world where automation and big data are increasingly integrated into in daily life (Alvaredo et al., 2021[26]; The Royal Society, 2020[27]; Harvard University, n.d.[28]).

The results of the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) highlight strengths and critical concerns regarding student performance, particularly in mathematics. While some countries have shown improved outcomes over time, the overall trends raise significant questions. One alarming finding is the “unprecedented drop” in mathematics performance across OECD countries between 2018 and 2022, equivalent to a loss of three-quarters of a school year’s learning (OECD, 2023[29])

While this decline is likely linked in part to the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important to note that student performance had already been gradually declining prior to the pandemic, as can be observed in Figure 1.1. This suggests that it is important for policymakers, educators and other education stakeholders to consider possible reasons for deeper, long-term challenges in education systems, and not only changes due to the pandemic.

Researchers argue that the downward trend in student performance observed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic in several countries can be attributed to several interrelated systemic issues (OECD, 2023[29]), such as:

• Gaps between curriculum content and real-world applications. One issue is a slow adaptation of curriculum, in particular in mathematics, to shift from routine calculations to incorporate problem solving and real-world application. Traditional teaching methods that emphasise rote learning may not be preparing students adequately for higher-order skills, leading to declining performance.

• Teacher shortages, teacher education and professional development. Research has shown a lack of well-trained teachers and insufficient professional development opportunities as critical issues. In some countries, the recruitment and retention of qualified mathematics teachers have become more challenging, affecting the quality of instruction. Even when curriculum content is updated, inadequate training on new pedagogical approaches can leave teachers unprepared to successfully implement the new content.

• Technological disruptions. Another issue is the extent of technological tool use in mathematics classes. While technology has the potential to enhance learning, it can lead to disengagement and distraction when poorly implemented; unequal access to such tools can also be an issue.

• Student perceptions about math. Another cause could be that students often perceive mathematics as a difficult or irrelevant subject to their future lives; this lack of motivation can lead to lower effort and achievement. Research has shown that student engagement with subjects like mathematics has been declining.

• Inequity in education. Inequity performance gap trends have been exacerbated, where wealthier students have more opportunities to succeed academically while disadvantaged students struggle in math.

Furthermore, in low-performing countries, there is widespread disappointment in student outcomes, despite considerable public investment in education. For example, 35 education systems participating in the last round of PISA underperformed in mathematics proficiency, with over 50% of 15-year-old students failing to meet basic competency levels, i.e. being able to solve simple problems in mathematics (OECD, 2023[29]). In 12 of these systems, over 80% of students scored below basic proficiency levels. This is a serious concern, as mathematical literacy is a critical skill for participation in modern societies. Students without these basic competencies are at a disadvantage in the workforce, limiting their ability to contribute to national economies (OECD, 2019[31])

In various high-performing countries, a different concern exists. Despite having a good share of top performers in mathematics and/or science, these countries face a paradox: a significant proportion of these high achievers are not interested in pursuing careers in STEM-related fields. For example, in Estonia, Finland, Hong Kong (China), Japan, Korea and the Netherlands, fewer than 20% of top performers express an interest in related careers, such as science and engineering, a concerning figure for policymakers, given the critical role these fields play in driving innovation and economic growth (OECD, 2019[32]). The decreasing interest in STEM professions has implications for national competitiveness and innovation capacity (OECD, 2021[33]).

PISA 2022 results have also shown that in many school systems, including all EU countries, students’ confidence about motivating themselves to do schoolwork is weaker than their confidence about using digital technology for learning remotely. On average, around 75% of students felt confident using digital tools like learning management systems or video communication platforms. However, only about 60% felt equally confident about self-motivating and staying focused on schoolwork without reminders. This suggests that students often struggle with self-motivation, self-control and self-discipline needed for autonomous learning. This has an important policy implication, as this means teaching students how to use digital devices is not enough – students also need to develop strategies on how to motivate themselves to effectively navigate their own learning.

Autonomous learning does not mean that teachers are not necessary; on the contrary, teachers’ support matters even more. Indeed, students whose teachers were available when schools were closed scored higher in mathematics and were more confident about self-directed learning. Self-motivation is necessary not just during school but throughout life for upskilling and reskilling. It is important for teachers to better understand that instilling students with self-motivation for lifelong learning requires a highly complex developmental trajectory; for example, teachers may need pedagogical knowledge such as intrinsic and extrinsic motivation theories, for example, Deci and Ryan’s self-determination theory, which stresses autonomy, competence and relatedness as key factors of self-motivation (2008[34]).

Beyond self-motivation, autonomous learners also need digital navigation skills (OECD, 2023[29]). Teachers need a combination of knowledge about their students’ prior skills and awareness about digital literacy, critical thinking skills, and a supportive, responsible and empowering attitude. Teachers should be able to guide their students in recognising reliable sources, identifying biases, conducting research online, and understanding how digital content is curated and influenced by algorithms. In addition to technical proficiency, teachers can empower students to become discerning, responsible digital citizens by instilling certain attitudes and values e.g. respect for intellectual property, data privacy, digital safety, inclusivity, and balanced digital habits for well-being.

These realities, coupled with the growing pressures on education systems to equip young people with the agency, well-being and competencies necessary for success in a rapidly evolving world, highlight some of the reasons behind the push for curriculum reform in mathematics in various countries. For example, the demand for 21^st century competencies such as digital literacy, data literacy, computational thinking, critical thinking, self-directed and autonomous learning, collaboration and problem solving is rising, and mathematics curricula is increasingly expected to adapt and help prepare students for the future, as outlined in the OECD Learning Compass for Mathematics 2030 (OECD, 2023[35]).

Recognition that mathematics education must do more than teach disciplinary knowledge has been a significant factor in discussions about mathematics curriculum, assessment and pedagogy for many decades. The importance of mathematical literacy has been part of policy discussions since the mid-1940s. For example, in 1989, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics in the United States identified five goals relating to mathematical literacy for all students (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), 1989[36]). These goals focused on helping students:

As educators and policymakers seek to redesign mathematics curricula for the future, it is essential to bridge the gap between the theoretical foundations of mathematics and its practical applications. Students must be provided with opportunities to engage with mathematics in ways that reflect its real-world relevance and utility, ensuring that they leave school not only with an understanding of mathematical concepts but also with the confidence and capability to apply them effectively in everyday life and the workplace.

It is in this context that a number of mathematics-related competencies have gained increased importance in curriculum reform circles. As a response, the OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030 (E2030) project has embarked on a series of mathematics-specific curriculum analyses.

The new demands on mathematics education are synthesised in the OECD Learning Compass (LC) for Mathematics (Figure 1.2 below). The framework sets out the key concepts and types of mathematical competencies today’s students need to thrive in math and apply the math knowledge and skills to shape a better future.

The key concepts and constructs included in the LC include: student agency, co-agency, collective agency, literacy, numeracy, digital literacy, data literacy (including information use), physical and mental health literacy, creativity, conflict resolution, responsibility, computational thinking/programming/coding, literacy for sustainable development/environmental literacy, financial literacy, problem solving, critical thinking, communication, self-direction/learning to learn, persistence, and resilience.

In order to support countries to redesign their curriculum by embedding so-called 21^st century competencies, the OECD E2030 project developed a Curriculum Content Mapping (CCM) exercise. It supported countries to better understand how well their curricula are intended, by design, to develop competencies essential for the future in major subjects, including mathematics. The curriculum experts coded their curriculum documents and mapped how well the types of knowledge, skills, attitudes and values implicated in the OECD Learning Compass are explicitly intended in their curriculum.1 The key constructs included in CCM include: student agency, co-agency, literacy, numeracy, Information and Communications Technology (ICT)/digital literacy, data literacy, physical/health literacy, creativity, responsibility, conflict resolution, critical thinking, problem solving, co-operation/collaboration, self-regulation/self-control, empathy, respect, persistence/resilience, trust, learning to learn, global competency, media literacy, literacy for sustainable development, computational thinking/programming/coding, financial literacy, and entrepreneurship.

The exercise supported countries to recognise gaps between current curricula and future needs, offering insights for curriculum redesign and helping countries avoid overloading their curricula by adding too many new topics without careful integration. Participating countries use CCM as a tool for both self-reflection and peer learning, allowing them to track their progress in curriculum reform and make evidence-based adjustments. Ultimately, the CCM helps ensure that education systems align with the evolving demands of the 21st Century, emphasising interdisciplinary and holistic competency-based learning approaches.

The E2030 project also conducted a mathematics-specific curriculum analysis, the Mathematics Curriculum Document Analysis (MCDA), modelled after the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS-95).2 The analysis focused on: i) curriculum changes, investigating how the content and focus on mathematics curricula have evolved, particularly looking at new topics that have emerged in recent decades, such as statistics, algorithmic reasoning and nonlinear models; ii) mathematics literacy, assessing how countries are incorporating mathematic competencies, e.g. quantitative reasoning, data interpretation and real-world problem solving, into their curriculum; iii) textbook analysis, reviewing the consistency between national curriculum standards and the textbooks used in classrooms, ensuring that students have opportunities to develop both traditional and modern mathematical competencies; and iv) decision making, exploring who holds decision-making power in mathematics curricular reforms and, analysing how decisions regarding mathematics education are made and implemented. The key constructs of 21^st century competencies included in MCDA include: communication, creativity, critical thinking, information use, reflection and resistance/ resilience, and systems thinking.

The MCDA project aimed to ensure conceptual coherence with the PISA 2022 mathematics assessment framework through having the same expert sitting in both of the technical groups. As a result, the key constructs included in the PISA 2022 assessment are highly consistent: communication, critical thinking, creativity, research and inquiry, self-direction/initiative/persistence, information use, system thinking, and reflection.

For a comparative table of key constructs, please see Table 1.1.

In order to contextualise all the above technical analyses in a real policy context, the project also conducted a Policy Questionnaire on Curriculum (PQC)3 (OECD, 2020[20]). The aim of the PQC was twofold: to give countries/jurisdictions the opportunity to learn from peers about good practices in and challenges faced in the curriculum redesign process and to provide countries/jurisdictions with an opportunity for self-reflection to position their curriculum (e.g. visions, educational goals and expected student outcomes).

Notions of curriculum and approaches to curriculum redesign are particularly diverse across countries and jurisdictions. To capture this diversity, the PQC questionnaire was designed with an exploratory approach, covering key policy issues in curriculum design: 1) contextual information necessary to better understand country-specific circumstances regarding curriculum, e.g. major government visionary policies, legal regulation/s, education courses and curricula, teachers’ and students’ autonomy in curricula, extra-curricular activities; 2) curriculum-specific information, e.g. curricular goals, values, coverage, textbooks, instruction time and transition; 3) trends in curriculum redesign e.g. trends in the frequency of changes, stakeholder management, lessons learned from the previous curriculum reform, plan for the next curriculum, etc. For more information on the methodology of the PQC please refer to the technical report (OECD, 2020[20]).

This section details specific findings from the CCM exercise, highlighting how countries integrate 21^st century competencies into mathematics curricula compared to other subjects. To ensure a valid and reliable analysis, definitions were carefully developed for this CCM exercise, with particular attention to the language variations in curriculum documents among participating countries.

Overall, mathematics curricula across countries/jurisdictions vary significantly in how they integrate 21^st century competencies. Some obvious foundational competencies, such as numeracy, critical thinking and problem solving, are extensively embedded and highly emphasised within mathematics education. These reflect the foundational skills necessary for cognitive development and the application of mathematical reasoning to real-world situations. Interestingly, some competencies that might not traditionally be associated with mathematics, like literacy, are also embedded into mathematics in some countries/jurisdictions, reflecting a broader shift towards making mathematics more interdisciplinary and relevant to diverse contexts.

However, emerging competencies like social and emotional skills, transformative competencies (e.g. responsibility, trust and empathy) and co-agency, are generally less embedded in mathematics compared to other subjects like humanities, national language or physical education. For example, empathy, trust and respect are more commonly found in subjects that foster social interactions and collaborative learning, such as national language or arts, and are rarely incorporated explicitly into mathematics.

It is important to clarify that CCM findings reflect what is outlined in curriculum documents (i.e. the intended curriculum), not necessarily what teachers implement in classrooms (i.e. the taught curriculum) or the learning outcomes students actually achieve (i.e. the achieved curriculum). It is also important to note that the CCM findings illustrate how countries make different choices, prioritising their own unique cultural and context.

Student agency is defined as “the capacity and propensity to take purposeful initiative – the opposite of helplessness. Young people with high levels of agency do not respond passively to their circumstances; they tend to seek meaning and act with purpose to achieve the conditions they desire in their own and others’ lives. They have the belief that they can have impact and influence over their learning and future.” (OECD, 2020[20]). The extent to which countries/jurisdictions explicitly incorporate student agency in their curricula varies considerably (Figure 1.3).

Supporting student agency in mathematics will empower students to approach problems with confidence and creativity, develop perseverance when tackling difficult tasks, and apply mathematical reasoning independently and collaboratively. However, while mathematics is a key subject, it is often less emphasised in a math curriculum document, compared to other subjects in fostering student agency. Only a few countries/jurisdictions embed student agency in mathematics curriculum, i.e., British Columbia (Canada) (17%) and Saskatchewan (Canada) (14%) and Korea (8%). In other countries, other subjects, such as national language, science, and arts. receive greater focus. Additionally, technologies/home economics and PE/health also show, to some extent, a representation in certain countries.

Literacy is defined as “the ability to evaluate, use and engage with written, spoken, visual and multi-modal texts” (OECD, 2020[20]). It is a cornerstone of success in the 21^st century, enabling students to access and interpret information, make informed decisions, and fully participate in a globally connected world.

Literacy also plays a pivotal role in mathematics, helping students to solve word problems, comprehend complex instructions, and understand mathematical proofs. Without strong literacy skills, students may struggle to interpret the meaning behind numbers and symbols, which limits their problem-solving ability. Acknowledging the vital connection between literacy and mathematical understanding, several countries have integrated more than 10% of literacy-focused items in their mathematics curriculum, e.g. British Columbia (Canada) (17%), China (14%), Japan and Northern Ireland (United Kingdom) (13%), and Lithuania and Saskatchewan (Canada) (12%). Similarly, literacy is considered as the core foundation for other subjects and thus is embedded in almost all other subjects (such as science, technology, national language, humanity, arts and even physical education/health), of course with varying degrees across countries.

Numeracy is defined in the CCM exercise as “the ability to access, use, interpret and communicate mathematical information and ideas” (OECD, 2020[20]).This includes applying the knowledge and skills acquired in mathematics when engaging with subject-specific content in other subject areas, where appropriate. Numerate students can apply mathematical understanding and skills effectively in both school settings and everyday life. Numeracy is embedded, with significant variation, in the mapped curricula of participating countries (Figure 1.5).

Not surprisingly, numeracy is primarily embedded within mathematics in most countries/jurisdictions. However, among top PISA performing countries, patterns vary. For example, Estonia shows significant integration of numeracy (39%) across a wide range of subjects, including mathematics (8%), science (10%), technologies/home economics (9%), national language (5%), humanities (5%), and even arts (2%) and physical education (1%), whereas Japan shows a more concentrated pattern with numeracy-related content items embedded mostly in mathematics (12.6%), and some in technologies/home economics (0.7%) and humanities (0.7%).

Digital literacy is defined in the CCM exercise as the “ability to use information and communications technology (ICT) effectively and appropriately in school and beyond school”. Digitally literate students are able to access, create and communicate information and concepts, and adapt to changing technologies. They are also able to use ICT4 to achieve a purpose and to communicate with others using devices in an ethical and responsible way (OECD, 2020[20]). ICT/digital literacy is strongly emphasised within the content of mapped curricula, ranging from 16% to nearly 70% of curriculum content items (Figure 1.6).

Embedding digital literacy into the mathematics curricula ensures that students are not only proficient in mathematical concepts but also able to leverage digital tools to solve complex problems. Digital literacy enables students to handle data, create models and use simulations, which are increasingly relevant in various sectors such as engineering, finance and technology.

Estonia stands out, with nearly 70% of its curriculum embedding ICT/digital literacy – mathematics (4%), however, is not the subject in which ICT/digital literacy is embedded most, with humanities (15%) and science (14%) as the two most highlighted learning areas for the development of this competency. Kazakhstan and Korea also feature this competency prominently, with close to 60% of their curricula embedding ICT/digital literacy, with a notable emphasis in Kazakhstan on integration into mathematics (18%). British Columbia (17%) and Saskatchewan (15%) (both Canada), as well as Japan (13%) feature ICT/digital literacy to a greater extent in mathematics specifically.

A noticeable trend across the countries and jurisdictions is the consistent integration of ICT/digital literacy across the seven mapped learning areas. This competency is frequently embedded in both STEM subjects and social sciences, such as humanities and national language. Although ICT/digital literacy is less prevalent in areas like physical education/health and arts, most countries take advantage of multiple opportunities to foster ICT/digital literacy across their curricula.

Data literacy is increasingly considered as one of the foundational literacies essential for future success, as it enables students to navigate and interpret the vast amounts of data they encounter in today’s information-rich world. It is defined as the ability to acquire meaningful information from data, and create and communicate using data, based on mathematical understanding and skills (particularly in relation to statistics). It includes thinking critically about information presented in statistical or visual formats, analysing the data and determining the accuracy of claims and objective interpretations made in relation to the data (OECD, 2020[20]). Data literacy is embedded within the curricula of various countries and jurisdictions, with significant variation in coverage (Figure 1.7).

Mathematics provides the necessary foundation for understanding data; data literacy enables students to apply mathematical concepts to real-world scenarios and enhances computational thinking, fostering skills like pattern recognition and abstraction to develop solutions that can be automated and scaled using computer-based technologies.

The distribution of data literacy across different subject areas reflects the interdisciplinary nature of this competency. For instance, Kazakhstan incorporates data literacy into 69% of its curriculum, with 18% in mathematics, while Greece includes it in only 8% (with only 1% in mathematics). Kazakhstan is closely followed by Saskatchewan and British Columbia (both Canada), embedding data literacy in 15% of their mathematics curriculum, while in contrast, countries such as Estonia (14%), China (12%) and Lithuania (10%) focus primarily on embedding data literacy within science subjects. Japan, on the other hand, places a strong emphasis on data literacy in the national language curriculum (11%).

Critical thinking is defined in the CCM exercise as questioning and evaluating ideas and solutions. This definition embodies components of metacognition, social and emotional skills (reflection and evaluation within a cultural context), attitudes and values (moral judgment and integration with one’s own values), as well as a combination of many cognitive skills including experiencing, observing, analysing, conceptualising, synthesising, evaluating, reflecting and communicating. Critical thinking is a higher-order cognitive skill and includes inductive and deductive reasoning, making correct analyses, inferences and evaluations (OECD, 2020[20]). Critical thinking is one of the most frequently embedded cross-curricular competencies, found in various learning areas in curriculum, including mathematics (Figure 1.8).

It is essential in mathematics, as it allows students to engage deeply with concepts, evaluate solutions and approach problems methodically and logically, building a robust foundation for effective decision making, logic and adaptability – all essential qualities in personal and professional contexts.

In most countries/jurisdictions, critical thinking is embedded across all seven mapped learning areas. Israel, Estonia, Korea, Lithuania and British Columbia (Canada) feature critical thinking in over 80% of their mapped content items. Out of those, Israel (18%) and British Columbia (Canada) (17%) embed critical thinking to a greater extent in mathematics, closely followed by Kazakhstan (18%), Saskatchewan (Canada) (15%), Korea, Lithuania and Northern Ireland (United Kingdom) (all three at 13%). The presence of critical thinking in particular subjects varies significantly between countries. For example, in Greece and Japan, critical thinking is emphasised in a substantial proportion of the curriculum in humanities and national language, not only in mathematics and technologies/home economics.

Problem solving is defined as the process of finding solutions to difficult or complex issues, and involves engaging in cognitive processes to resolve situations where a clear solution is not immediately available. The OECD further emphasises problem solving as a multi-faceted skill, which can take various forms, including interpersonal, intrapersonal and social problem solving, as well as within specific disciplines like mathematics and science (OECD, 2020[20]). Since the 1990s, curriculum designers have increasingly recognised the importance of students engaging in problem solving and investigative activities as part of their development as emerging mathematicians and statisticians. Since then, problem solving has become another widely embedded concept in curricula across the world (Figure 1.9). It is fundamental in mathematics, as it represents the process of applying mathematical concepts to finding solutions, fostering logical thinking and creativity, thus cultivating critical skills that shape analytical, resilient and adaptable thinkers.

Countries/jurisdictions such as Israel, Korea, Japan, Estonia, Kazakhstan, China, British Columbia (Canada), Lithuania and Saskatchewan (Canada) embed problem solving in over 60% of their mapped curricula. However, mathematics is not the first subject choice for embedding this concept: only Korea (13%), Japan (12%), China (12%) and Estonia (11%) are beyond 10%, while other countries prefer giving precedence to subjects such as science, technologies/home economics, national language and humanities to target problem solving.

Co-operation/ collaboration refers to the ability to work well as member of a group or team, being loyal to the group, doing one’s share. Teamwork is a strong predictor of well-being and of a fulfilled and successful life. Collaboration skills are character traits and skills (rather than moral values or attitudes) (OECD, 2020[20]). Co-operation/collaboration in mathematics is essential as it transforms the traditionally individual learning process into a dynamic, interactive experience, making the subject more approachable, all while cultivating empathy and respect for others’ perspectives – thus building strong socio-emotional foundations. Moreover, co-operative learning methods have been shown to improve students’ achievement in mathematics and their attitude towards mathematics (Zakaria, Chin and Daud, 2010[38]; Hossain and Tarmizi, 2013[39]).

Co-operation/collaboration is embedded to varying degrees across the mapped curricula of different countries/jurisdictions (Figure 1.10). However, given the traditional view of mathematics as an individual pursuit, countries tend to integrate these competencies less into their mathematics curriculum and more into subjects such as national language, science and home economics, which more naturally involve teamwork. An exception can be found in Northern Ireland (United Kingdom) (13%), and to a much lesser extent in Saskatchewan (Canada) (4%), Korea and Lithuania (both at 3%). In general, there is a large disparity among countries on including such competencies in their curriculum – for instance, Korea includes co-operation/collaboration in 71% of its curriculum, while it is less prominent in countries like Sweden (9%), the Netherlands (11%), Portugal (15%) and Australia (16%).

Persistence refers to the disposition required to maintain effort or interest in an activity in the face of difficulties encountered, the length of time or steps involved, or when opposed by someone or something. The American Psychological Association defines resilience as the process of adapting well in the face of adversity, trauma, tragedy, threats or significant sources of stress — such as family and relationship problems, serious health problems or workplace and financial stressors. It means “bouncing back” from difficult experiences (OECD, 2020[20]). Yet the incorporation of persistence into educational curricula varies significantly across different countries/jurisdictions (Figure 1.11).

Persistence is critical in the mathematical context, as it enables students to tackle complex concepts, overcome challenges, and ultimately build a deeper understanding of the subject – it transforms frustration into progress, and ultimately, into a sense of achievement and confidence in their abilities.

Despite this competency being critical to math, only Northern Ireland (United Kingdom) (13%), and to a much lesser extent Korea (3%), Estonia, British Columbia (Canada) and Australia (all at 1%) embed persistence into their mathematics education, whereas other countries/jurisdictions mostly integrate them within PE/health, national language or technologies/home economics. In general, the integration of persistence in curricula is quite low compared to other competencies related to socio-emotional foundations: while Kazakhstan, Northern Ireland (United Kingdom) and China integrate these into around 30% of their curricula items, others, such as Portugal, do not explicitly focus on this competency.

The CCM exercise mapped curriculum content items related to the broader concept of creating new value. Creating new value refers to the ability to contribute to society by identifying new sources of growth, such as developing innovative solutions, products, services, jobs, processes and methods. This competency prepares students for future challenges by fostering new ways of thinking, new enterprises and new social and business models. Creativity is a core element of creating new value and is often described as “outside-the-box thinking” – the ability to approach problems or situations from fresh perspectives, resulting in novel and unconventional solutions (OECD, 2020[20]). Figure 1.12 demonstrates how countries embed the competency of creating new value across their curricula. In mathematics education, fostering creativity can lead to new approaches to problem solving, flexible thinking and deeper understanding, encouraging students to think beyond conventional methods.

While mathematics is not the subject that most countries use to foster creating new value, it is incorporated into mathematics education in various countries/jurisdictions, including Japan (13%), Northern Ireland (United Kingdom) (12%), Korea (8%), and to a lesser extent in Estonia (4%), Sweden, Kazakhstan, Saskatchewan (Canada) (all at 3%), as well as Australia and British Columbia (Canada) (1% for both). Countries like Estonia, Kazakhstan, Korea and Japan lead in embedding creating new value in their content items, embedding it in over 50% of their mapped curriculum across various subjects including national language, arts, technologies/home economics and science. In contrast, countries like Greece (3%) and Portugal (13%) show less emphasis on fostering creating new value in their mapped curricula.

The E2030 project refers to compound competencies as the integration of knowledge, skills, attitudes and values that are crucial for individual, social and environmental well-being in 2030. These competencies are multi-dimensional, requiring a combination of cognitive, emotional and social capabilities to prepare students for the complex challenges they will face. In the CCM exercise, several key compound competencies were mapped, including computational thinking, financial literacy, entrepreneurship, media literacy, global competency and literacy for sustainable development.

Computational thinking involves formulating problems and developing solutions that can be carried out by computer-based technologies, is increasingly recognised as a key competency in modern education. Programming and coding involve the development of knowledge, understanding and skills regarding the language, patterns, processes and systems needed to instruct/direct devices such as computers and robots (OECD, 2020[20]). As Figure 1.13 illustrates, computational thinking is less widely embedded into the mapped curricula than critical thinking or problem solving, with only Estonia and British Columbia (Canada) integrating it into more than 20% of their curriculum items.

The association with mathematics is that computational thinking involves logical, systematic thinking, pattern recognition, abstraction and algorithm design (through e.g. coding), while at the same time fostering critical thinking and adaptability.

In most countries/jurisdictions, computational thinking is primarily embedded within technologies/home economics and mathematics. For instance, Saskatchewan (Canada) embedded 96% of their computational thinking content into mathematics (representing 14% of content items). British Columbia (Canada) (15%), Korea (7%), Kazakhstan (3%), Estonia (2%), Japan (2%), Australia, the Netherlands, Northern Ireland (UK) and Sweden (all at 1%) all demonstrate a slightly broader distribution, integrating computational thinking across humanities, national language and science, while still embedding items into mathematics.

Financial literacy is defined as the ability to apply financial knowledge and skills to real-life situations involving financial issues and decision making. It involves knowledge and understanding of financial concepts and risks, and the skills, motivation and confidence to apply such knowledge and understanding in order to make effective decisions across a range of financial contexts. Financial decisions are part of everyone’s lives at all ages, from spending pocket money, to entering the world of work, managing one’s own budget, purchasing goods, saving for future expenses, understanding credit and loan payments, and retirement planning. Financial literacy helps individuals to navigate these decisions and strengthens their individual financial well-being as well as that of society as a whole, as it promotes inclusive growth and more resilient financial systems and economies (OECD, 2020[20]).

As Figure 1.14 illustrates, it is embedded to a lesser extent in the mapped curricula compared to other competencies such as numeracy and data literacy.

Mathematics and financial literacy are inextricably linked – financial literacy provides students with practical real-world applications for mathematical skills, empowering them to make sound financial decisions throughout their lives. While there is considerable variation in the distribution of financial literacy across learning areas, most countries tend to embed financial literacy within two to three learning areas, predominantly in mathematics, technologies/home economics and humanities. For instance, financial literacy is embedded to a great extent in math curricula in British Columbia (Canada) (13%), Kazakhstan (11%), and Northern Ireland (United Kingdom) (7%), and to a lesser extent in Saskatchewan (Canada) (4%), Lithuania (3%), China, the Netherlands (both at 2%), Australia, Estonia and Sweden (all three at 1%). The figure also shows that while countries like Kazakhstan and Estonia have integrated financial literacy into more than 20% of their curricula, others such as Portugal (0%), Greece (2%) and Japan (3%) have included it minimally or not at all.

Literacy for sustainable development refers to the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values needed to promote sustainable development. To be literate in sustainable development requires understanding how social, economic and environmental systems interact, recognising and appreciating different perspectives that influence sustainable development and participating in activities that support more sustainable ways of living (OECD, 2020[40]). Many countries/jurisdictions have responded by embedding sustainability content across various subjects, yet the level of integration varies significantly between curricula (Figure 1.15).

In the mathematics context, it empowers students to use mathematical skills to address sustainability challenges with quantitative insights and informed decision making. Connecting sustainability topics with mathematical skills such as data analysis and statistical reasoning is crucial for understanding and evaluating complex environmental issues. Moreover, integrating tools such as modelling for environmental challenges into mathematics education also shows students how math skills are directly applicable to pressing global issues, inspiring a practical commitment to sustainability and problem solving.

Despite its potential to play a critical role in addressing real-world challenges, the integration of literacy for sustainable development in mathematics is rare in the mapped curricula, with Northern Ireland (United Kingdom) (6%), British Columbia, Saskatchewan (both Canada) and Sweden (all at 1%), representing close to negligeable exceptions. China leads with the highest level of integration, embedding sustainable development across 45% of its curriculum, covering six out of seven learning areas, with a particular focus on humanities, science and technologies/home economics. Estonia (39%) and Japan (38%) follow closely, showing a strong focus on sustainable development in subjects like science, technologies/home economics and humanities.

Curriculum reform in mathematics is considered as inherently complex and resource-intensive, probably more than in other learning areas for a number of reasons, such as:

• The nature of mathematics as a discipline. The relative stability of content topics in mathematics curriculum compared to other disciplines over the years (Schmidt et al., 2022[41]); the difficulties of modifying curriculum given the hierarchical and progressive nature of the discipline (Schmidt and Prawat, 2006[42]).

• The disproportionate pressure of high-stakes examinations on mathematics curriculum. The pressure from what is prioritised on high-stakes examinations (Stacey, 2010[43]).

• Over-reliance on mathematics textbooks. The overwhelming reliance on mathematics textbooks, which are often outdated (Fan, 2011[44]).

• The role of students’ attitudes – particularly “mathematics anxiety” – in learning. The particular role that students’ attitudes and beliefs play in learning mathematics (Boaler, 2016[45]).

• Teacher shortages, teacher education and professional development in mathematics. The need for targeted investments to align mathematics curriculum with teacher professional learning (Ball and Cohen, 1999[46]).

The global evolution of mathematics over centuries has given it a unique position within school curriculum as a discipline that consistently builds upon the foundations laid by earlier civilisations. Mathematical concepts that are featured in today’s school curricula were recorded in Babylonian times, developed by ancient Greek mathematicians, and influenced by ancient Chinese and Islamic mathematics. Modern mathematics, which has developed with the advent of the computer, of chaos theory, topology, mathematical physics and category theory, builds on and extends, rather than replaces, what earlier civilisations established. This continuity of advancement highlights the role of mathematics not just as a historical subject but as an ever-progressing field essential for addressing current and future global challenges.

As mathematics evolves alongside technological advancements, as a school discipline, it has been regarded as a “hard to change” learning area. Its hierarchical structure with learning sequences requiring gradual progression from simple to complex notions, or from basic principles to advanced ones, challenges how much change can be made to the curriculum while respecting its disciplinary integrity (Roche, Sullivan and Walker, 2014[47]). The inherent foundational and sequential nature of mathematics explains some of the concerns about the limited adaptability of mathematics curriculum in response to the new societal demands, including the integration of technology (Hoffmann and Egri-Nagy, 2021[48]).

While the discipline remains at the forefront of education, preparing students for increasingly complex and dynamic environments poses a question to curriculum designers and educators about how to develop and maintain a curriculum that is:

• responsive to both local and global contexts, equipping students not only with the knowledge but also the competencies needed for their adult lives in diverse, rapidly changing societies;

• manageable within the constraints of available resources, such as instruction time, teaching materials and teacher capacity.

Examinations convey messages about what to teach and how to assess learning, and high-stakes testing can serve to either broaden teaching and learning or make them more uniform and narrow. A test or examination is considered high-stakes when its results are used to make important decisions that affect students, teachers, administrators, schools and/or districts (Madaus, 1988[49]). High-stakes tests usually link performance to grade promotion, high school graduation, and, in some cases, decisions about teacher and principal salaries and tenure (Orfield and Wald, 2000[50]). Furthermore, the results of these tests, along with the rankings and categorisations of schools, teachers and students, are often made public, increasing the stakes for all involved (McNeil, 2002[51]).

Raising the standards of learning in school is an important priority in most countries and jurisdictions. Policymakers throughout the world have increasingly introduced national and local standards and mandated testing programmes to assess and report on student performance in core areas like mathematics. In countries/jurisdictions with a heavy emphasis on high-stakes mathematics tests, students’ grades and future academic opportunities are closely tied to their performance in these assessments.

Examinations and assessment practices vary across contexts and education systems and, depending on how well they are designed, they might have some positive influences on students, for example, by motivating them to make informed decisions about their future (Perico E Santos, 2023[52]; Bishop, 1998[53]). They can also serve an important purpose in providing accountability information on system level performance (Wößmann, 2003[54]).

That being said, some research suggests that high-stakes assessment may also be counterproductive, particularly in relation to disadvantaged students. Low-achieving students tend to demonstrate lower (rather than improved) performance when being graded (Klapp, 2015[55]). In their review of research on the impact of high-stakes testing on student motivation, Harlen and Deakin Crick conclude that results from such tests have been found to have a “particularly strong and devastating impact” on low-achieving students (2003[56]).

High-stakes testing has also been shown to have an impact on how teachers teach. The relationship between high-stakes testing and classroom practice is, however, a more complex matter. While the primary consequences of high-stakes testing are that curricular content tends to be narrowed and subject area knowledge fragmented into test-related pieces (Minarechová, 2012[57]), there are also studies that indicate that certain types of high-stakes tests may actually lead to curricular content expansion or have other positive consequences, with test design being a critical determining factor of these outcomes (Au, 2007[58]).

Since mathematics (alongside other core subjects, such as national language) is more often assessed in high-stakes exams compared to other subjects, high-stakes examinations can disproportionally influence the “taught curriculum” in mathematics compared to other subjects, especially when given priority over other disciplines such as science, social studies and the arts (King and Zucker, 2008[59]; Klein, 2000[60]; Davis and Martin, 2006[61]).

The risk of curriculum narrowing and fragmentation can be inadvertently detrimental to the inclusion of broader educational goals. (Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen and Becker, 2003[62]). While recognising positive associations between mathematics and numeracy for further education, employment and life outcomes, a holistic education can also support students in developing critical thinking, empathy, and social responsibility, all of which are essential for tackling complex societal issues (OECD, 2024[63]). Education systems that focus on such holistic approaches have observed students’ improved academic performance, emotional well-being and social skills, preparing them for diverse life challenges (Datnow et al., 2022[64]; Mahmoudi et al., 2012[65]).

In classrooms all over the world, textbooks are used as a key tool to support the teaching and learning of mathematics (Schmidt et al., 2001[66]). Although there is variation across countries, jurisdictions and even schools and classrooms as to how, and the extent to which, textbooks are used, they are one of the main influencing factors in the teaching of mathematics. Textbooks shape didactical situations together with the teacher, the students and the mathematics (Rezat and Straesser, 2014[67]). Results from the TIMSS 2011 indicated that for more than half of students in secondary school in countries such as Australia, Canada, Finland, Singapore, South Africa and Sweden, the textbook was used as the basis of instruction. In the United States, the textbook was the foundation of mathematical education for 48% of students, and in some countries the percentage was higher than 90% (Mullis et al., 2012[68]).

While textbooks are used frequently as a primary teaching tool, they may not always promote a deep understanding of mathematical concepts or encourage innovative teaching practices. One study highlighted that teachers often use textbooks for structuring lessons and providing exercises, but this can lead to a "shallow teaching" approach where procedural understanding is emphasised over conceptual understanding. This kind of reliance on textbooks can inhibit the adoption of more effective, student-centred teaching methods that encourage critical thinking and problem-solving skills (Ling, Jones and Pepin, 2018[69])

The extent to which textbooks are outdated and misaligned with a country’s overall and subject-specific curriculum goals is an area of great concern for policymakers, and a clear limiting factor in connecting policy intentions to practice. This is unfortunately the case in many countries, as will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 2 (Schmidt et al., 2022[41]).

Box 1.1 provides an example of the challenges related to over-reliance on textbooks, which might leave little room for deeper understanding and real-world application of mathematics, highlighting the pressures of examination-focused learning.

Researchers identify mathematics anxiety as a unique form of anxiety related to numbers and mathematical problem solving. Mathematics anxiety is commonly understood as a feeling of tension and stress that interferes with an individual's ability to perform mathematical tasks, both in academic settings and in everyday life (Richardson and Suinn, 1972[70]).

There are significant physiological, cognitive and behavioural correlates of mathematics anxiety, including physiological reactivity to numbers, avoidance, feelings of helplessness and negativity when confronted with mathematical tasks, and negative attitudes towards one’s own problem-solving abilities (Ashcraft and Kirk, 2001[71]). Ashcraft and Moore (2009[72]) argue that mathematics anxiety causes an “affective drop,” a decline in performance under timed, high-stakes conditions in educational settings, such as examinations. This means that achievement and proficiency scores for maths-anxious individuals are underestimates of their true abilities. 

Furthermore, a person’s attitude towards mathematics – whether they enjoy or fear it – can strongly influence their decision to pursue further studies or careers requiring mathematical skills (Brown, Brown and Bibby, 2008[73]). Thus, mathematics anxiety plays a critical role in both the development of mathematical competencies and overall well-being, as it can cause considerable stress and frustration (Dowker, Sarkar and Looi, 2016[74]).

Most students want to achieve in mathematics. Younger students are likely to understand that this is something their teachers and parents think is important. Older students know it is important for future jobs and careers. Sources of mathematics anxiety, despite the desire to achieve, may include students receiving negative feedback about their ability; this may be a result of comparing themselves to others, or more formally through poor results.

Developing positive attitudes to understanding and applying mathematical knowledge and skills, including fostering a growth-mindset, are thus critical to combatting mathematical anxiety, as will be examined in more detail in Chapter 3 (Dowker, Sarkar and Looi, 2016[74]; Dweck, 2006[75]). The task of embedding such perspectives in the mathematics curriculum may not be straightforward, as it pertains as much to questions about “taught curriculum” as it does to the design of curriculum and learning materials (Dweck, 2014[76]).

While mathematics curriculum has rarely been the subject of international analysis, the next chapter will describe some of the findings from the international curriculum studies carried out by the OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030 project. They shed light on how mathematics curricula are evolving across countries/jurisdictions, both in relation to mathematical content coverage and in relation to how countries are integrating some of the so-called 21^st century competencies in their mathematics curricula. The findings also invite reflection on some gaps identified between current curricula and aspirations for the future.

For students to be well-equipped with mathematical literacy for the 21st Century, simply updating a curriculum or setting new learning standards is insufficient; quality teachers are essential. However, countries face challenges in attracting, recruiting, retaining and developing their teaching workforce.

Mathematics teacher shortages are widely reported across various educational systems, particularly in high-need schools and rural areas (OECD, 2023[29]). These shortages are a global concern and have a notable impact on educational quality and equity. In Australia, for example, 61% of students attended schools where principals reported that teaching was hindered "a lot" or "to a large extent" due to shortages of teachers, marking a significant increase of more than 40 percentage points from the previous 2018 assessment. This shortage particularly affected schools in disadvantaged and remote areas. In remote areas in Australia, for example, 95% of principals reported difficulties due to staffing shortages in 2022 (Thomson, De Bortoli and Underwood, 2024[77]; OECD, 2023[29]). Research suggests that shortages in mathematics are often driven by a combination of factors, including the limited supply of qualified teachers, teacher attrition and competition with other higher-paying professions (Ingersoll, 2001[78]; Sutcher, Darling-Hammond and Carver-Thomas, 2016[79]).

In order for curriculum reform, particularly in subjects like mathematics, to be effective, there must be a strong alignment between the curriculum and the professional learning opportunities available (Cohen and Ball, 1999[80]). Teachers must have the knowledge, skills and professional support necessary to effectively implement curriculum changes in the classroom. Ongoing professional development is crucial to address changing curricula, new educational technologies and evolving pedagogical strategies. However, professional development in mathematics is often criticised as being “fragmented, underfunded, or misaligned with teachers’ needs” (Desimone, 2009[81]; Garet et al., 2001[82]).

The quality of teacher preparation programmes for mathematics teachers is another concern. Research has pointed to inconsistencies in the rigor and content of teacher education programmes, e.g. not providing sufficient depth in mathematical content knowledge or pedagogical strategies specifically tailored to teaching mathematics (Loewenberg Ball, Thames and Phelps, 2008[83]; Monk, 1994[84]).

Investments should be made not just in developing new curricula, but also in designing teacher education programmes, professional development programmes and support programmes that are closely aligned with the content and pedagogical shifts required by the new curriculum.

[10] Ahmad, T., H. Zhang and B. Yan (2020), “A review on renewable energy and electricity requirement forecasting models for smart grid and buildings”, Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol. 55, p. 102052, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102052.

[26] Alvaredo, F. et al. (2021), World Inequality Database, World Inequality Lab, https://wid.world/.

[71] Ashcraft, M. and E. Kirk (2001), “The relationships among working memory, math anxiety, and performance.”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol. 130/2, pp. 224-237, https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-3445.130.2.224.

[72] Ashcraft, M. and A. Moore (2009), “Mathematics Anxiety and the Affective Drop in Performance”, Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, Vol. 27/3, pp. 197-205, https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282908330580.

[58] Au, W. (2007), “High-Stakes Testing and Curricular Control: A Qualitative Metasynthesis”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 36/5, pp. 258-267, https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x07306523.

[7] Bello, O. and K. Olufemi (2024), “Artificial intelligence in fraud prevention: Exploring techniques and applications challenges and opportunities”, Computer Science & IT Research Journal, Vol. 5/6, pp. 1505-1520, https://doi.org/10.51594/csitrj.v5i6.1252.

[53] Bishop, J. (1998), “The Effect of Curriculum-Based External Exit Exam Systems on Student Achievement”, The Journal of Economic Education, Vol. 29/2, p. 171, https://doi.org/10.2307/1183407.

[45] Boaler, J. (2016), Mathematical mindsets: Unleashing students’ potential through creative math, inspiring messages, and innovative teaching, Jossey-Bass.

[73] Brown, M., P. Brown and T. Bibby (2008), ““I would rather die”: reasons given by 16-year-olds for not continuing their study of mathematics”, Research in Mathematics Education, Vol. 10/1, pp. 3-18, https://doi.org/10.1080/14794800801915814.

[80] Cohen, D. and D. Ball (1999), “Instruction, Capacity, and Improvement”, PsycEXTRA Dataset (database), https://doi.org/10.1037/e382692004-001 (accessed on 23 October 2024).

[64] Datnow, A. et al. (2022), Transforming education for holistic student development, Learning from education system (re)building around the world.

[61] Davis, P. and S. Martin (2006), Examination-Driven Teaching: Effects on Curriculum and Instruction.

[34] Deci, E. and R. Ryan (2008), “Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health.”, Canadian Psychology / Psychologie canadienne, Vol. 49/3, pp. 182-185, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012801.

[81] Desimone, L. (2009), “Improving Impact Studies of Teachers’ Professional Development: Toward Better Conceptualizations and Measures”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 38/3, pp. 181-199, https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x08331140.

[74] Dowker, A., A. Sarkar and C. Looi (2016), “Mathematics Anxiety: What Have We Learned in 60 Years?”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 7, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00508.

[76] Dweck, C. (2014), The power of believing that you can improve (video), https://www.ted.com/talks/carol_dweck_the_power_of_believing_that_you_can_improve.

[75] Dweck, C. (2006), Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, New York: Random House.

[44] Fan, L. (2011), “Textbook research as scientific research: Towards a common ground on issues and methods of research on mathematics textbooks. , 43(5), 639-650”, ZDM Mathematics Education, Vol. 43/5, pp. 639-650.

[82] Garet, M. et al. (2001), “What Makes Professional Development Effective? Results From a National Sample of Teachers”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 38/4, pp. 915-945, https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038004915.

[56] Harlen, W. and R. Deakin Crick (2003), “Testing and motivation for learning”, Assessment in Education: principles, policy & practice, Vol. 10/2, pp. 169-207, https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594032000121270.

[28] Harvard University (n.d.), Big Data for Social Good, https://pll.harvard.edu/course/big-data-social-good (accessed on 7 November 2024).

[15] He, S., S. Tang and L. Rong (2020), “A discrete stochastic model of the COVID-19 outbreak: Forecast and control”, Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, Vol. 17/4, pp. 2792-2804, https://doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2020153.

[48] Hoffmann, M. and A. Egri-Nagy (2021), “A new model of mathematics education: Flat curriculum with self-contained micro topics”, Philosophies, Vol. 6/3, p. 76, https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies6030076.

[39] Hossain, A. and R. Tarmizi (2013), “Effects of Cooperative Learning on Students’ Achievement and Attitudes in Secondary Mathematics”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 93, pp. 473-477, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.09.222.

[78] Ingersoll, R. (2001), “Teacher Turnover and Teacher Shortages: An Organizational Analysis”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 38/3, pp. 499-534, https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038003499.

[4] Jahani, H., R. Jain and D. Ivanov (2023), “Data science and big data analytics: a systematic review of methodologies used in the supply chain and logistics research”, Annals of Operations Research, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-023-05390-7.

[6] Javaid, H. (2024), “AI-Driven Predictive Analytics in Finance: Transforming Risk Assessment and Decision-Making”, Advances in Computer Sciences.

[8] Johnson, K. et al. (2020), “Precision Medicine, AI, and the Future of Personalized Health Care”, Clinical and Translational Science, Vol. 14/1, pp. 86-93, https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.12884.

[59] King, M. and S. Zucker (2008), The impacts of statewide assessments on curriculum narrowing.

[55] Klapp, A. (2015), “Does grading affect educational attainment? A longitudinal study”, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, Vol. 22/3, pp. 302-323, https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594x.2014.988121.

[60] Klein, D. (2000), A study on curriculum focus under high-stakes testing conditions.

[3] Lassébie, J. and G. Quintini (2022), “What skills and abilities can automation technologies replicate and what does it mean for workers?: New evidence”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 282, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/646aad77-en.

[69] Ling, L., K. Jones and B. Pepin (2018), “Are textbooks facilitators or barriers for teachers’ teaching and instructional change? An investigation of secondary mathematics teachers in Shanghai, China”, ZDM – Mathematics Education, Vol. 50/4, pp. 645-659, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0930-5.

[83] Loewenberg Ball, D., M. Thames and G. Phelps (2008), “Content Knowledge for Teaching”, Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 59/5, pp. 389-407, https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554.

[49] Madaus, G. (1988), “The distortion of teaching and testing: High‐stakes testing and instruction”, Peabody Journal of Education, Vol. 65/3, pp. 29-46, https://doi.org/10.1080/01619568809538611.

[65] Mahmoudi, S. et al. (2012), “Holistic Education: An Approach for 21 Century”, International Education Studies, Vol. 5/3, https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v5n3p178.

[51] McNeil, L. (2002), Contradictions of School Reform, Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203900451.

[57] Minarechová, M. (2012), “Negative impacts of high-stakes testing”, Journal of Pedagogy / Pedagogický casopis, Vol. 3/1, pp. 82-100, https://doi.org/10.2478/v10159-012-0004-x.

[84] Monk, D. (1994), “Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and student achievement”, Economics of Education Review, Vol. 13/2, pp. 125-145, https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7757(94)90003-5.

[11] Mostafa, N., H. Ramadan and O. Elfarouk (2022), “Renewable energy management in smart grids by using big data analytics and machine learning”, Machine Learning with Applications, Vol. 9, p. 100363, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mlwa.2022.100363.

[68] Mullis, I. et al. (2012), TIMSS 2011 international results in mathematics, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.

[5] Nadikattu, R. (2020), “Research on Data Science, Data Analytics and Big Data”, SSRN Electronic Journal, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3622844.

[36] National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (1989), “Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics.”, Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics..

[63] OECD (2024), Mathematics for Life and Work: A Comparative Perspective on Mathematics to Inform Upper Secondary Reform in England, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/26f18d39-en.

[2] OECD (2023), OECD Employment Outlook 2023: Artificial Intelligence and the Labour Market, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/08785bba-en.

[35] OECD (2023), OECD Learning Compass 2030: The Future We Want for Mathematics, OECD Publishing, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/projects/edu/education-2040/publications/OECD-Learning-Compass-for-Mathematics-2023-13-Oct.pdf.

[30] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en.

[29] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en.

[13] OECD (2022), Skills for the Digital Transition: Assessing Recent Trends Using Big Data, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/38c36777-en.

[22] OECD (2021), Health at a Glance 2021: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/health-at-a-glance-2021_ae3016b9-en.

[33] OECD (2021), OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2021: Times of Crisis and Opportunity, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/75f79015-en.

[40] OECD (2020), Curriculum Overload: A Way Forward, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3081ceca-en.

[1] OECD (2020), OECD Learning Compass 2030: Concept note, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/projects/edu/education-2040/concept-notes/OECD_Learning_Compass_2030_concept_note.pdf.

[20] OECD (2020), Technical report: Curriculum Analysis of the OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/projects/edu/education-2040/2-5-supporting-materials/Technical%20_Report_Curriculum_Analysis_of_the_OECD_Future_of_Education_and_Skills_2030.pdf (accessed on 17 July 2024).

[37] OECD (2019), Education 2030 Curriculum Content Mapping: An Analysis of the Netherlands Curriculum Proposal, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/projects/edu/education-2040/6-bilateral-support/E2030_CCM_analysis_NLD_curriculum_proposal.pdf.

[31] OECD (2019), PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en.

[32] OECD (2019), PISA 2018 Results (Volume II): Where All Students Can Succeed, PISA, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/b5fd1b8f-en.

[14] OECD (2018), The Future of Education and Skills: Education 2030. Position paper, https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/contact/E2030_Position_Paper_(05.04.2018).pdf.

[50] Orfield, G. and J. Wald (2000), “Testing, testing”, The Nation.

[52] Perico E Santos, A. (2023), “Managing student transitions into upper secondary pathways”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 289, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/663d6f7b-en.

[67] Rezat, S. and R. Straesser (2014), Mathematics textbooks and how they are used, Masterclass in mathematics education: International perspectives on teaching and learning, 51-62.

[70] Richardson, F. and R. Suinn (1972), “The Mathematics Anxiety Rating Scale: Psychometric data.”, Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 19/6, pp. 551-554, https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033456.

[47] Roche, A., P. Sullivan and N. Walker (2014), A Framework for Content Sequencing from Junior to Senior Mathematics Curriculum, Retrieved from ERIC (Education Resources Information Center) database, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED558292.

[41] Schmidt, W. et al. (2022), “When practice meets policy in mathematics education: A 19 country/jurisdiction case study”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 268, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/07d0eb7d-en.

[66] Schmidt, W. et al. (2001), Why Schools Matter: A Cross-National Comparison of Curriculum and Learning. The Jossey-Bass Education Series., The Jossey-Bass Education Series. Jossey-Bass, 989 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94103-1741.

[42] Schmidt, W. and R. Prawat (2006), “Curriculum coherence and national control of education: Issue or non-issue?”, Journal of Curriculum Studies, Vol. 38/6, pp. 641-658.

[16] Schwartz, R. (2010), “Relating Mathematics to Environmental Issues”, The Journal of Environmental Education, pp. 30-32, https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1985.9942718.

[9] Shah, V. (2022), “Machine Learning Algorithms for Cybersecurity: Detecting and Preventing Threats”, evista Espanola de Documentacion Cientifica.

[43] Stacey, K. (2010), “The PISA view of mathematical literacy in Indonesia”, Journal on Mathematics Education, Vol. 1/1, pp. 85-96.

[79] Sutcher, L., L. Darling-Hammond and D. Carver-Thomas (2016), A Coming Crisis in Teaching? Teacher Supply, Demand, and Shortages in the U.S., Learning Policy Institute, https://doi.org/10.54300/247.242.

[46] Sykes, G. and L. Darling-Hammond (eds.) (1999), Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education, Jossey-Bass.

[27] The Royal Society (2020), Mathematical Futures: Delivering a Maths and Data Education for 21st Century, https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/maths-futures/mathematical-and-data-education-policy-report.pdf.

[77] Thomson, S., L. De Bortoli and C. Underwood (2024), PISA 2022: Reporting Australia’s Results. Volume II: Student and School Characteristics, Australian Council for Educational Research.

[17] United Nations (2015), “Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations”, https://sdgs.un.org/sites/default/files/publications/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf.

[23] United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2017), “Climate Change and Social Inequality”, Vol. DESA Working Paper No. 152, https://www.un.org/esa/desa/papers/2017/wp152_2017.pdf.

[24] United Nations Development Programme (2021), The Most Vulnerable, the Most Affected: Countries Doing the Most to Tackle the Climate Crisis, https://www.undp.org/press-releases/most-vulnerable-most-affected-countries-doing-most-tackle-climate-crisis-un.

[25] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2021), NFCCC Annual Report 2021, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, https://unfccc.int/annual-report-2021.

[62] Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. and J. Becker (2003), “Challenges and opportunities in examination-driven mathematics education”, ZDM – Mathematics Education, Vol. 35/1, pp. 87-97, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-003-0005-x.

[18] World Economic Forum (2020), Recession and automation changes our future of work, but there are jobs coming, report says, https://www.weforum.org/press/2020/10/recession-and-automation-changes-our-future-of-work-but-there-are-jobs-coming-report-says-52c5162fce/.

[19] World Economic Forum (2020), The Future of Jobs Report 2020, https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-future-of-jobs-report-2020/.

[21] World Health Organization (2021), World Health Statistics 2021: Monitoring health for the SDGs, Sustainable Development Goals, https://www.who.int/data/gho/publications/world-health-statistics.

[54] Wößmann, L. (2003), “Schooling Resources, Educational Institutions and Student Performance: the International Evidence”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 65/2, pp. 117-170, https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0084.00045.

[12] Wu, C., A. Bayen and A. Mehta (2018), “Stabilizing Traffic with Autonomous Vehicles”, 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), https://doi.org/10.1109/icra.2018.8460567.

[38] Zakaria, E., L. Chin and M. Daud (2010), “The Effects of Cooperative Learning on Students’ Mathematics Achievement and Attitude towards Mathematics”, Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 6/2, pp. 272-275, https://doi.org/10.3844/jssp.2010.272.275.