|
Reactions to 12th Grade TIMSS results
|
|
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/twelfth/
The Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) was designed explicitly to enable educators and policy makers to compare achievement in science and mathematics of students in the United States with those in other countries at three levels of education, grades 4, 8, and the final year of secondary school (grade 12 in the U.S.). With this publication of the results of the 1995 assessment of the final year of secondary school, TIMSS has been successful. In addition, differences in student learning and characteristics of schooling, as measured by the TIMSS assessment instruments and questionnaires, enhance our understanding of the possible influences of such factors as school organization, teaching practices, student study habits, and family background. But the secrets of raising the level of student achievement beyond their current levels are not readily uncovered, and this study provides no easy answers or quick fixes.
The results of students in the final year of secondary school in the TIMSS science and mathematics general knowledge assessments found that our students performed less well than they did at grade 8, significantly below the international mean. In addition, U.S. most advanced students (those taking pre-calculus or calculus and those taking physics) performed at low levels in advanced mathematics and at especially low levels in physics when compared with similar students in other countries.
Once the results for all grades are considered, we see that U.S. students in the early school years have reasonable levels of achievement when compared with other countries--in science they are actually rated near the top--but performance lags by grade 8 and becomes even poorer at grade 12. The report's new information about advanced students should be reviewed carefully by college and university policy makers as well as those who influence coursetaking and career decisions made during the high school years.
Results of the advanced mathematics test reveal some unexpected weaknesses. Despite the fact that about one-quarter of the test related to calculus and that one-half of the U.S. advanced mathematics students were actually studying calculus, it was in geometry, not calculus, where U.S. students performed worst. This is consistent with performance in grades 4 and 8, but unexpected because these advanced students have all had formal geometry coursework. The results show that both geometry and algebra need to be key subjects of study throughout the curriculum.
For me, as a physicist with a keen interest in education, the science results are even more troubling. Students performed poorly in most sub-areas of physics, with the poorest performance coming on items on mechanics and electricity/magnetism (areas that account for about 75 percent of American physics textbooks). Even students who took an Advanced Placement physics course scored below the international norm.
These studies suggest that students appear to disengage from learning critical mathematics and science content as they progress through the school system. The sources of disengagement may include the classroom environment, the quality of instruction, and parental and community support for the value of science and mathematics to our children's future.
Improving achievement in mathematics and science subjects, whether in basic skills or advanced critical thinking, will require that students have, in combination, access to good teachers, good teaching materials, and agreement within the school on the goals of learning for all students. There are many efforts underway in states and localities throughout the United States to reform the process of teaching and learning mathematics and science. They are beginning to reveal mechanisms for obtaining gains in achievement. TIMSS also provides us with examples of nations with high performance at all grade levels, most notably Canada, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. American educators need to examine these successful efforts, learn from them, and effectively use all available resources to improve teaching and learning in mathematics and science at all grade levels.
Neal Lane, Director
National Science Foundation
February 1998
http://ustimss.msu.edu/nsfstmnt.htm
Dr. Neal Lane
Director, National Science Foundation
October 15, 1996
On Release of the Curriculum Analysis Aspect
of
the Third International Mathematics and Science Study
Today we release a report entitled A
Splintered Vision: An Investigation of U.S. Science and Mathematics Education,
the culmination of years of international curriculum comparisons. This study
compares how the U.S. and other countries organize their elementary and
secondary math and science curriculums.
Although other NSF reports released
in the past year have pointed to encouraging improvements in student
achievement, today's announcement reminds us again that the struggle to prepare
our students for the 21st century is far from over. This investigation of
schooling in 50 countries does not measure student achievement. But the
findings do indicate that because U.S. science and math teachers are expected
to teach a wide range of subjects, they seldom have the time to teach any in
depth. Teachers in other countries, however, are expected to teach a relatively
narrow range of subjects and thus have more time to go into more depth.
Compared to their colleagues overseas, moreover, U.S. teachers are in the
classroom more frequently, leaving them with far less time to prepare their
lessons.
The findings also indicate that, in contrast
to the U.S., other nations strongly emphasize quality science and math
education for every student rather for an elite few. This philosophy -- coupled
with a strong emphasis on inquiry-based, "hands on" learning -- is a
hallmark of science and math education programs supported by the National
Science Foundation.
This study addresses the most
important investment any nation can make: the preparation of future generations
for a fast-changing world. A strong foundation in science and mathematics is not
a luxury; it is a necessity. More and more jobs demand competence in these
areas. The knowledge- and technology-based economy of the next century will
place a high premium on science literacy and mathematics skills. America needs
a scientifically and technologically literate workforce in order to compete in
the global marketplace; and all American students need a sound education in
science and mathematics in order to compete in an increasingly demanding
workplace.
Our future success as a nation rests
on the shoulders of today's students. In the 21st century, knowledge will be
the most valuable commodity; and knowledge of science and mathematics will be
the gold standard. Knowledge may be intangible, but it is not cheap. It
requires a sustained investment and an unwavering commitment. The National
Science Foundation remains committed to reform of mathematics and science
education at every level, in every location, and for every student.
-NSF-
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
http://www2.ed.gov/inits/TIMSS/980223-r.html
A r c h i v e d I
n f o r m a t i o n
|
|
|
Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Thank you Pat. Good morning. These are very important
results from the Third International Math and Science Study concerning our
nation's 12th graders. These results are entirely unacceptable, and
absolutely confirm our need to raise our standards of achievement, testing,
and teaching, especially in our middle and high schools --and to get more
serious about taking math and science courses. Let me outline five basic steps we
need to take. First, we need to build a firm foundation for our students
during the middle school years; second, state assessments and standards must
be raised; third, we must expect more high school students to take four years
of math and science, including physics, chemistry, trigonometry, and
calculus; fourth, more teachers must be prepared to teach these subjects; and
fifth, as a nation we must make sure that all students --not just the elite
or the brightest --understand the importance of math and science in their
lives. I am confident that Americans --
and American students -- have the ability to be competitive with the best
students in the world. Consider, for example, the most recent TIMSS
measurement of U.S. 4th graders. It showed that our students are well above
the international average in mathematics and very near the top in achievement
in science. This and other assessments show that we are making progress.
Unfortunately, we are not gaining fast enough -- and the rest of the world is
not standing still. We give our children a good
foundation in the basics. Unfortunately, math and science education gets
"stuck in a rut" in the middle grades. We run in place and then
allow the majority of our students to "check out" of rigorous math
and science courses in high school. The U.S. was the only country in
TIMSS whose students dropped in ranking from above average performance in
mathematics at the fourth grade to slightly below average performance at the
eighth grade. By the 12th grade, our students'
standing has fallen even further. We must recognize why the drop-off occurred
and act aggressively to fix it. The first reason, and the real core
of the problem, is the low expectations and low standards we have for what
our students can and should learn in math and science from 4th to 12th grade.
At the 8th grade, for example, many state standards and tests are far less
rigorous than national and international standards of excellence. That is why President Clinton,
Vice President Gore, and I have encouraged the development of a voluntary
national test in eighth grade mathematics. It would be highly inconsistent to
condemn the performance of a sample of U.S. students on this test and then
turn around and deny parents and teachers the chance to see how their
children would perform individually on a rigorous voluntary national test in
math that is linked to TIMSS and NAEP, the National Assessment of Education
Progress. Second, taking the tough courses,
including challenging mathematics and science, makes a powerful difference.
All students must master the traditional basics of arithmetic early on --and
then move on to more challenging courses. Unfortunately, too many students
-- particularly during the middle school and high school years --are not
taking the rigorous or advanced courses in mathematics and science. By the
8th grade, less than one quarter of American students have taken algebra, while
almost all students in the rest of the developed world by that time have
studied the fundamentals of algebra and some geometry. Among our high school
students only 25% take physics and 10% take calculus. What classes students take is so
vitally important because it affects all students -- those in public and
private schools; across all economic levels; from the highest achieving down
to the lowest. A large scale study by the Department confirms that it is the
courses students take -- not whether they are taken in public or private
schools that make a difference. The third major reason our success
in the early years hasn't continued is that too many math and science
teachers are teaching out of field. In 1993-94, 28% of public high school
math teachers in the U.S. were teaching without a major or a minor and 55% in
physics. It's time we overhaul the recruitment, preparation and ongoing
professional development of our science and math teachers. Fourth, we must purge the view
that it is ok to be illiterate in math or science -- that these are subjects
only for the elite among us. Across our society, demands for specialized
skills requiring mathematics, science and technology are growing. Almost 90
percent of new jobs require more than a high school level of literacy and
math skills. We have all heard about the tremendous shortage of Information
Technology workers in America. The major burden in addressing
these issues and overcoming the challenge is on local schools, communities,
and states. I've seen communities -- a group of 20 school districts near
Chicago called the First in the World Consortium, for instance -- that have
taken comprehensive and successful steps toward achieving significantly
better results. Their students recently took the
TIMSS test and their students placed among the best in the world in 12th
grade in both math and science. They did it by involving parents, teachers,
students, and entire communities in developing a rigorous curriculum and high
quality teaching and testing. Over 70% of their high school seniors have
taken advanced math and physics courses. Half took algebra by the eighth
grade. We want to support local
communities in these kinds of efforts. That is why President Clinton has
developed a number of proposals to raise standards and achievement in math
and science. His most recent budget proposal includes a $60 million request
to Congress to fund an Action Strategy -- coordinated by my Department and
the National Science Foundation -- to strengthen the teaching of mathematics
in middle schools. The President also has proposed
$350 million over five years to help local communities get qualified teachers
into every classroom, with a special emphasis on math and reading. And his
$22 billion school modernization proposal will help upgrade math and science
classrooms and laboratories in many overcrowded and outdated schools. I would add one final thought.
Let's put an end to the shortsighted, politicized, and harmful bickering over
the teaching and learning of mathematics going on in California and elsewhere
across this country. We need less ideology and more geometry; less dogmatism
and more trigonometry and physics. Failing to focus on what really helps kids
learn is an enormous waste of time and a misdirection of our energies. I am
confident that if all students and schools were immersed in rigorous teaching
and learning environments we would be in the top tier at all levels. I challenge local schools, school
boards, and communities to take a close, hard look at what your students are
learning. I urge you to meet and discuss these results. Take a look at the
TIMSS questions and answers, which are readily available for your review on
the Internet and elsewhere. They are challenging questions. I hope local communities will
compare their tests against national and international standards. Determine
what is needed in their districts and schools. And then institute more
challenging classes and more rigorous teaching. This is indeed a great challenge
-- but one that befits a great nation. Thank you so much. |
http://ustimss.msu.edu/12gradepr.htm
EMBARGOED
UNTIL 11:00 AM EST ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1998
Media Contacts:
Karen Twigg, 517-355-2281
twiggk@pilot.msu.edu
Jacqueline Babcock,
517-353-7755
jbabcock@pilot.msu.edu
Michigan State University
455 Erickson Hall
East Lansing, MI 48824-1034
Phone: (517) 353-7755
Fax: (517) 432-1727
National Center
for Education Statistics
Washington, D.C.
National
Science Foundation
Washington, D.C.
PRESS
STATEMENT BY WILLIAM H. SCHMIDT
U.S.
TIMSS NATIONAL RESEARCH COORDINATOR
MICHIGAN
STATE UNIVERSITY
Are There
Surprises in the TIMSS Twelfth Grade Results?
"There is something surprising
about the mathematics and science achievement results for US high school
seniors," said Dr. William H. Schmidt in discussing the recently released
TIMSS (Third International Mathematics and Science Study) high school seniors'
results. "What is surprising is not the
profoundly disappointing results but rather failing to realize how predictable
those results were given what we already knew. The mathematics and science
performance of American high school seniors is neither unexpected nor
unimportant."
TIMSS released achievement results
comparing general mathematics and science knowledge among typical graduating
seniors in several countries. They also released results on more advanced,
specialized achievement tests for graduating seniors studying physics or
calculus (including Advanced Placement courses in one or both of those areas)
and their counterparts in other countries.
TIMSS showed very low results for US
students compared to those in the other countries giving the tests, both for
general knowledge by average graduating seniors and for advanced performance by
seniors studying physics and calculus. A recent report, Facing
the Consequences, from the US TIMSS Research Center suggested that these
results were certainly to be expected. It pointed out that there was a
consistent decline in our relative standing from fourth grade to eighth grade
in both mathematics and science. Of the almost 40 topics examined in both
mathematics and science, none showed improved standing relative to other TIMSS
countries from fourth to eighth grade. Most topics showed a decline over the
middle school years.
Schmidt said, "It could hardly
be a surprise to find this decline continuing on through high school. As we
discussed in Facing the Consequences and
in our earlier report A Splintered Vision, US curricula through eighth grade
do not focus on any key topics or give them significantly more attention. Those
curricula and our textbooks are highly repetitive and unchallenging in grade
after grade of the middle school years. How could they provide a sound
foundation on which to build during the high school years?" The middle
school curricula in most TIMSS countries cover topics from algebra, geometry,
physics and chemistry. For most US students these are first studied, if at all,
in high school. Many students (about 15 percent) never study algebra, geometry
(about 30 percent), advanced algebra (40 percent), other advanced mathematics
(around 80 percent), chemistry (about 45 percent) or physics (almost 75
percent).
Schmidt indicated, "US students
frequently opt out of advanced study of mathematics and science in high school
or are placed in less demanding courses even if they do continue to take
mathematics and science courses. So high school mathematics and science is
unlikely to overcome the poor foundation provided during US middle school
education and reverse the downward trend in comparative performance for average
students."
The US is also selective about who
takes what courses, especially in mathematics. We do this even before high
school and are essentially unique among TIMSS countries in doing so. As early
as middle school we offer different content to different groups of students. We
presumably do this to improve our educational 'efficiency' and increase
learning for all students or, at least, for the students in our most demanding
courses. It doesn't work. Facing the Consequences used TIMSS results to
examine these practices in some detail and found that they did little to help
most students learn mathematics. The report also found that this practice
contributed to exaggerating achievement differences among US students. The new
twelfth grade results make it clear that tracking also fails to provide
satisfactory achievement for either average or advanced students.
That report suggests that tracking
is not the only problem with the US approach to mathematics and science
education. US science and mathematics curricula cover many topics but without
devoting much time to any one topic. This makes it unsurprising that there
appeared to be only very small differences in what had been learned by US
fourth graders compared to third graders or by eighth graders compared to
seventh graders. This was true for all mathematics and science topics examined.
Schmidt said, "We have characterized US science and mathematics curricula
as 'a mile wide and an inch deep.' We can hardly be surprised to find the
achievement gains in all of those topics only an 'inch deep' as well."
The US pattern of consistent small
gains contrasts sharply with patterns in other TIMSS countries where in any
single grade there are large gains for some topics and small gains in others.
US high school seniors' performance on the TIMSS tests show that this approach
of accumulating consistent small gains in the end does not result in overall
gains as large as those attained by focusing on some topics for greater gains
but changing the focus across the years of schooling. Schmidt suggested,
"Surely these results must call into question the entire US approach to
mathematics and science curricula across the grades."
What about the US's better students?
When asked, Schmidt replied, "For some time now, Americans have comforted
themselves when confronted with bad news about their educational system by
believing that our better students can compare with similar students in any country
in the world. We have preferred not to believe that we were doing a
consistently bad job. Instead, many have believed that the problem was all
those 'other' students who do poorly in school and who we, unlike other
countries, include in international tests. That simply isn't true. TIMSS has
burst another myth - our best students in mathematics and science are simply not
'world class'. Even the very small percentage of students
taking Advanced Placement courses are not among the world’s best."
US students have been provided with
weak foundations for studying advanced mathematics and science.. "Our high school specialists are ill prepared to
gain the most from advanced study", Schmidt said. "A few grades of
weak specialization in high school does not appear
able to overcome the weak foundation we lay in earlier grades."
How mathematics and science is
arranged in courses also seems to be part of the problem. Better US students
study physics in only one or two courses. This is very different from what the students
study in the higher achieving countries where physics study begins during
middle school and continues throughout high school. Better US mathematics
students during high school years take separate courses in geometry,
pre-calculus, etc. In most TIMSS countries, students take a course in
mathematics -- a course which may include studying parts of advanced algebra,
geometry, finite mathematics, and calculus at the same time. They may take such
courses for several years.
"What these results for US high
school seniors make clear and what we tried to examine closely in Facing the
Consequences," Schmidt said, "is that there is no one source of
these problems and no one source for their solution. The problem is bigger. It
is in our system, not any single part of it. We can waste our time protesting
each and every change. We can also waste our time thinking that any one change
will solve all our problems. In either case, what we do is waste our time. US
mathematics and science education has neither simple villains nor 'magic
bullets' to cure our ills. We've failed our tests. Do we want to fail our
futures, too?"
http://chuh.net/aw/timss.math-sci.find.htm
EST)
From: AIP listserver <fyi@aip.org>
To: fyi-mailing@aip.org
Subject: FYI #35 -
Math/Science Education Study
FYI
The American Institute
of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News
Number 35: February 27,
1998
U.S. 12th-Graders
Perform Poorly on International Math & Science Study
"These studies
suggest that students appear to disengage from learning critical mathematics
and science content as they progress through the school system." --NSF
Director Neal Lane
From scoring comfortably
above the international average in math and science at the fourth-grade level,
U.S. students drop to about average by eighth grade, and by twelfth grade they
outperform only two other participating countries in general math and science
knowledge. These are the initial findings from the Third International Mathematics
and Science Study (TIMSS), billed as the "largest, most comprehensive, and
most rigorous international study of schools and student achievement ever
conducted."
The TIMSS assessment was
given to a half-million students - in fourth grade, eighth grade, and at the
end of their secondary education - in 1995. The data gathered was analyzed and
presented by the Education Department's National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES) in three reports. The first provided results on
eighth-graders (see FYI #159, 1996), the second discussed fourth-graders (see
FYI #84, 1997), and the most recent report, released on February 24, looks at
the results for students in their last year of secondary school.
"Pursuing
Excellence: A Study of U.S. Twelfth-grade Mathematics and Science Achievement
in International Context" compares the performance of U.S. twelfth-graders
to students completing secondary school in 20 other countries in the areas of
general math and science knowledge, and to 15 other countries in advanced mathematics
and physics. Asian nations, many of which participated in the fourth- and
eighth-grade TIMSS studies, did not participate at this grade level.
The dramatic results
are: U.S. twelfth-graders performed among the lowest of 21 countries on the
assessment of mathematical and scientific general knowledge. In math, U.S.
students were outperformed by those in 14 other countries, had similar scores
to students in four countries, and performed better than students in only two
countries, Cyprus and South Africa. In science, U.S. students were outperformed
by students in 11 countries, performed similarly to those in seven countries,
and again outperformed only students in Cyprus and South Africa. The U.S.'s
lower relative ranking in general math (worse than 14 countries and similar to
four) than in general science (worse than 11 countries and similar to 7)
continues the same pattern found in both the fourth- and eighth-grade
assessments. The U.S. was one of 3 countries that did not demonstrate a
significant gender gap in general math. Although all the participating nations
except South Africa showed a gender gap in science, favoring males, the U.S.
had one of the smallest differences between male and female achievement.
The TIMSS questions were
designed to assess "how well students had acquired the mathematical and
scientific skills and knowledge judged by an international committee of experts
to be necessary for all citizens in their daily life," and were
"given to a random sample of all students at whatever grade their nation
or program of studies set as the end of their secondary schooling, regardless
of whether or not they were currently taking mathematics or science at the time
of the study."
A subset of advanced
students, from fewer countries, also participated in a comparison of
higher-level mathematics and physics. The advanced mathematics assessment
included the categories of calculus; numbers, equations and functions; and
geometry. In a comparison of achievement among 16 nations, U.S. twelfth-grade students
were bested by students in 11 countries, and did not perform better than a
single country. Among the content areas, U.S. students were relatively weakest
in geometry. Eight countries, including the U.S., showed a significant gender
gap, favoring males, in all three content areas.
The physics categories
included mechanics; electricity and magnetism; particle, quantum, and modern
physics; heat; and wave phenomena. U.S. students again did not outperform any
of the 15 other countries, and 14 of them outperformed the U.S. While among the lowest performers in all five content areas, U.S.
students performed relatively most poorly in mechanics, and electricity and
magnetism. In all the participating nations except Latvia, males
outperformed females in physics. For U.S. students, this gender gap existed in
all of the content areas except heat.
The report also looks
for factors in the students' schooling and lives that might account for
differing achievement levels, focusing specifically on the general math results.
For example, it finds that the proportion of graduating students currently
taking mathematics or science was lower in the United
States than the average for all participating countries. U.S. twelfth-graders
spent fewer hours per day studying or doing homework than the international
average; more of those U.S. twelfth-graders worked at paid jobs, and worked
longer hours, than did students in any other TIMSS nation. Students in the U.S.
spent the same amount of time watching TV and videos as the international
average. The report concludes that while there may be differences across
countries, "few appear to be systematically related to our performance in
twelfth grade compared to the other countries participating in TIMSS."
An initial analysis of
the data highlights two factors that appear to affect performance: For some
students, the last year of secondary school was not necessarily twelfth grade;
average student age and number of years of schooling varied from country to
country. Additionally, in both math and science, the content covered by the
TIMSS study was introduced later in the U.S. curriculum, on average, than in
the other countries as a whole.
Officials present for
the release of the new report urged continued efforts at education reform. Remarking
that "the fourth-grade results were more favorable," NSF Director
Neal Lane said "I believe there is a connection between those results and
the initiation in the early 1990s of math and science education reform efforts
in states and localities across the country.... The majority of twelfth-graders
tested in 1995 - the results of which we see today - would not have been
exposed to those reform interventions." He noted that President Clinton's
FY 1999 budget request includes a $60 million initiative "to improve
science and mathematics generally and middle-school math in particular."
Education Secretary Richard Riley added, "We give our children a good
foundation in the basics. Unfortunately, math and science education gets stuck
in a rut' in the middle grades. We run in place and then allow the majority of
our students to check out' of rigorous math and science courses in high
school."
The three reports from
the TIMSS study are available on the Internet at http://www.nces.ed.gov/timss/
###############
Audrey T. Leath
Public Information
Division
The American Institute
of Physics
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=s06101997
Remarks by Bruce Alberts
President
National
Academy of Sciences
at
News Conference to Release Fourth-Grade Findings from the
Third
International Mathematics and Science Study
June
10, 1997
The
White House
Washington,
D.C.
Thank
you for giving me the opportunity to comment on this new report, which I find
quite provocative. I would like to start by congratulating our elementary
school teachers for doing such a fine job.
What
can we learn from an examination of the 4th grade and 8th grade results? Recall
that the 8th grade results released last November were not nearly as positive
as the 4th grade results released today. Let me remind you that the poor
performance at the 8th grade level was not confined just to one class of
students: Even if we pick out the top math performers, the United States placed
only 5 percent of our students in the world's top 10 percent, compared to
one-third or more for several Asian nations.
Clearly,
there is no single, obvious explanation for the relatively strong 4th grade performance,
compared to what I view as a quite unsatisfactory performance in grade 8.
Nevertheless, I'd like to use this opportunity to make some observations that
are based on the data obtained by the TIMSS study, as well as on my personal
experiences in connection with the University of California at San Francisco's
vigorous partnership with the San Francisco public schools.
The
more we learn about what goes on in science and mathematics classrooms in
schools across the nation, the better we understand the three critical factors
that must come together for improvements to be made and sustained.
First,
for the first time in our nation's history, we have national science and
mathematics standards which provide the basis for reform; the blueprint; the
direction to move in -- which is, I suspect, part of the reason why we're
seeing these good results from 4th graders. They are beginning to benefit from
standards-based curricula and teaching. But I emphasize beginning. There
is much work to be done.
The
second factor is the need for outstanding, standards-based curricula in every
school. This is not as esoteric as it may sound. Here's what I'm talking about:
If your child is still doing the same type of arithmetic problems at 8th grade
that she was doing at 4th grade, only with more complicated numbers, then
something is wrong with how she's being taught. Instead of page after page of
long-division problems and computations with mixed fractions, she should be
working on analytical problems based on real-world situations. She should, for
instance, be developing the problem-solving skills needed to look at the graph
on the bottom of page 1 in USA Today and understand what it says and
means. This type of understanding -- being able to tease apart problems and analyze
them -- is promoted by the math and science standards. Such problems reflect
how math and science are used in the work force -- requiring more than rote
memorization of science words, and beyond addition, subtraction, and long
division. This is the kind of understanding that prepares students for the
workplace of tomorrow. In the 21st century, science and math skills will be
important for everyone, and the reason is simple: jobs.
Finally,
I want to speak to the responsibilities that we all have for making major
improvements in science and mathematics education. As the standards emphasize,
the task of educating our nation's youth is a task for us all. And our nation's
2.2 million scientists and engineers play a special role in this endeavor. For
example, consider Leon Lederman, a Nobel laureate in physics who is here with
us today. Leon has devoted a great deal of his time and energy to improving
science and mathematics education in his home town of Chicago. Through his
Teachers Academy for Mathematics and Science, he is enabling kindergarten
through 8th grade teachers to increase the breadth and depth of their knowledge
of science and mathematics, as well as teaching. His focus on
helping teachers, and his courage to introduce new structures into a complex
educational system, provide a model for others to follow.
We
all can recall, I am sure, a teacher who inspired us to examine a topic and
pull it apart to explore and analyze. We must work together to give all
teachers the tools they need to be able to do this well.
*
* * * *
Science
and mathematics education reform obviously presents a challenge. But it's an
achievable one, as demonstrated in the strides made by 4th graders. What we
need now is some strong forward movement in the middle school grades, which
will take concerted energy and commitment by educators and policy-makers alike.
In
mathematics and science, the analyses by Bill Schmidt show that our 4th grade
curricula, textbooks, and teaching are more focused than at 8th grade. In
particular, the 4th grade program for science is not a "mile wide and an
inch deep," which is how the 8th grade curriculum has often been
described. I believe that this factor contributes to our relatively high
international placements at the 4th grade level.
Having
good curricula is essential. We now have excellent inquiry-based curricula for
elementary school -- both in mathematics and in science. And I am pleased to
say that some of these hands-on curricula have been developed through a joint
project of the National Academy of Sciences and the Smithsonian Institution,
our National Science Resources Center. And, by the way, the center has a very
informative web site, at <www.si.edu/nsrc>.
It
is much harder to find curricula of similar quality in wide use in middle and
high schools. In science, what one tends to find instead as students age are
textbooks full of science words to be memorized. Now the curriculum becomes a
mile wide and an inch deep, as teachers attempt to cover all of biology, for
example, in a single year. It is not surprising to me that the same students
whose favorite subject was science in the 4th grade very often report that they
find science boring and tedious by the 8th grade. In far too many schools in
this country, what is taught as science in middle school is in fact boring and
tedious -- even to a scientist such as myself! This is
related to a fundamental impediment to success in American education today: the
disengagement of so many of today's middle school students from learning.
Although most attend class regularly, studies show that large numbers are
"psychologically absent," or disengaged. In addition, those who are
motivated to do well most often do so because they are anxious to get into
college, not because they are interested in what's
being taught. These findings cry out for a new push to maintain the excitement
and enthusiasm for learning found in the elementary school years on into the
middle and secondary school environment, through richer curricula that involve
a much more active learning process -- one that connects in clear ways to
students' lives.
Looking
forward, it is clear that we need to press for much more attention to the
preparation of teachers at all levels, especially the middle grades. We need
research that will help us better understand how teachers acquire and use their
content knowledge in the classroom. And we need well-polished, continuously
researched professional development programs designed to be shared via the
Internet as "free goods" and to be readily exportable from one school
district to another. Like any successful modern enterprise, school districts
should strive to invest a substantial percentage of their budgets each year --
as an example, District 2 in New York City is doing this with 3 percent of its
budget -- for professional development activities that help teachers hone their
teaching skills in reading, writing, mathematics, and science.
Much
of what I have been saying is strongly supported by the National Science
Education Standards, released in 1996. These standards describe what every 4th,
8th, and 12th grader in the United States should understand and be able to do
in science, and along with the standards for mathematics, they present a road
map on how to achieve excellence. Those interested in having a
better understanding of what the standards encompass should visit the National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics' web site at <www.nctm.org> for math, and at the
Academy's web site at <http://books.nap.edu/html/nses/>
for science.
In
light of the new findings from TIMSS, I believe that a vigorous new partnership
between the National Science Foundation and the Department of Education should
be formed to more closely integrate research and implementation. Only in this
way can we acquire the intelligence we need to make the best use of all of our
national talent -- in this crucial task of preparing all Americans for a
productive and rewarding life in the 21st century.
"No More Excuses for Poor Student
Performance"
(1)
Don't know much geometry.
Don't know much trigonometry.
Don't know much from the science book.
Don't know much about physics I took.
(2)
Or something like
that. But I do know that the United States isn't going to be "first"
in the world in mathematics and science by the year 2000, our goal.
(3)
According to a major international
study released last week, our 12th‑graders are closer to last place. A
cross‑section of U.S. public and private school students did poorly on
basic math and science knowledge, according to the Third International
Mathematics and Science Study. In advanced math and physics, our very best
students ranked in the cellar.
(4)
Students completing school in 21
countries, mostly in Europe, took the math and science literacy test, while 16
participated in the advanced testing. Asian countries, top scorers in the
fourth and eighth grade, didn't participate.
(5)
"TIMSS makes it clear we don't ask enough of
our kids," said Sandra Feldman, president of the American Federation of
Teachers. "We're near the top in fourth grade, in the middle by eighth
grade, and at the bottom in 12th grade."
(6)
The usual excuses don't wash, said
Pascal D. Forgione Jr., U.S. commissioner of
Education Statistics.
(7)
TIMSS doesn't compare our average students
to their elite. The United States no longer has a significantly higher
percentage of young people completing secondary school. The general knowledge
test was given to a range of students, including 10th‑graders completing
vocational school in some European countries. Students taking the advanced math
and physics tests represented the top 14 percent of American students enrolled
in pre‑calculus, calculus, or advanced placement calculus and in physics.
The international sample was less selective in math, representing 19 percent of
students, and similar in physics.
(8)
Diversity isn't to blame. "Most
countries have students from diverse language and cultural groups, "Forgione said.
(9)
It's not low‑achievers pulling
our average down. "The entire distribution of U.S. scores both starts and
ends lower than in most other nations, "Forgione
observed. "This means the average level of
general knowledge in mathematics among students in a majority of these
countries matched that of the top quarter of U.S. students."
(10)
TIMSS looked at
various factors believed to affect achievement. Few proved relevant in
explaining the 12th grade results.
(11)
U.S. students reported studying for
1.7 hours a day, compared to the international average of 2.6 hours, but study
time didn't correlate strongly with scores.
(12)
Our students watched about as much
television (also 1.7 hours a day) as the average.
(13)
U.S. 12th‑graders were more
likely than foreign students to say they really liked mathematics and various
sciences, more likely to use computers and similar in calculator use. Advanced
U.S. students were more likely to say they're often asked to explain their
reasoning and apply lessons to real‑world problems. It wasn't relevant.
(14)
Money didn't matter. The U.S. spends
more per student in elementary and secondary education than two‑thirds of
the other countries, the report noted. "U.S. performance resembled, on
average, the economically less‑affluent countries those with lower GNPs
per capita and lower per capita expenditures on elementary‑secondary
education participating in the general knowledge assessments, and two of the
less affluent countries Hungary and Slovenia also outperformed the United
States."
(15)
Instruction time made a difference,
but only for advanced math.
(16)
The real answers come from the
fourth and eighth grade studies, concludes William Schmidt, national research
director of TIMSS. Our fourth‑graders compare well to
students elsewhere, especially in science, but achievement scores slip by
eighth grade, due to a repetitive, unfocused, unchallenging middle‑school
curriculum. "Our students take a much weaker foundation into high
school," Schmidt says.
(17)
TIMSS isn't about bragging rights. It's
about our economic and social health.
(18)
"If we're to continue to be
global competitors in the new knowledge economy, we'll need a steady and
competent pool of employees," said U.S. Education Secretary Richard Riley,
who touted the president's proposed eighth grade math test.
(19)
California and many other states
have developed challenging math standards that should help focus curriculum.
Requiring kids to meet grade‑level standards to be promoted should make
it possible for teachers to spend less time on review, more time teaching new
concepts.
(20)
At least, the old complacency is
gone. We don't know much, but we know it won't be a wonderful world for math
and science dummies.