received the quality attention by mathematical scientists that it deserves. It invites the possibility of some novel and creative collaborations, where conventional ways of thinking have repeatedly failed to produce desired results.
The above kinds of efforts can be greatly facilitated by networking with colleagues on other campuses, where similar efforts are more highly evolved. There are various activities organized by the Mathematics Education Reform (MER) network and in special sessions at the winter joint meeting of he Mathematical Association of America/American Mathematical Society that support such networking.
While mathematics and mathematics education in the United States at the school, college, and graduate levels have historically been culturally and professionally separated—a separation visible in the distinct agendas and cultures of the AMS, MAA, American Mathematical Association of Two-Year Colleges, and National Council of Teachers of Mathematics—it becomes clear to anyone who contemplates the needs for improvement of mathematics education in the United States that this problem cannot be realistically segmented into components for which these four communities take separate and uncoordinated responsibility. As mathematical scientists, as mathematics education researchers, and as teachers in universities, colleges, community colleges, and schools, we must begin to see our concerns for graduate, undergraduate, and K-12 education as parts of an integrated educational enterprise, in which we have to learn to communicate and collaborate across cultural, disciplinary, and institutional borders, just as we are called upon to do in mathematical sciences research.