Commentary

Math Curriculum Reform Needs Complete Analysis

It appears that the topic of math education is the talk of the town these days, which has inspired me to share my thoughts with you. As a scientist, I have been acutely aware of the deficiencies in math education in our country for quite some time. Deficiencies in basic math skills and analytical aptitude are apparent in numerous Ph.D. students who have entered my laboratory over the past 10 years. As a member of the admissions committee of one of the major Ph.D. programs at UVM, I review applications of college graduates from all over the world. It is astonishing to clearly see that the GRE scores for math are far lower from U.S. students, compared to students from abroad. While these anecdotal observations are only indicative of a potential concern with math education in our country, this concern has in fact been the topic of in-depth discussion in various scientific organizations and federal agencies and culminated in an executive order by the president to establish the National Mathematics Advisory Panel in 2006. This panel, which consisted of mathematicians, scientists, educators and other experts, many of them leaders in their respective fields, was charged with the task to advise on “….ways to foster knowledge of and improved performance in mathematics among American students…” The National Mathematics Advisory Panel delivered its final report, “Foundations for Success,” in 2008. This final report (ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/report/final-report.pdf) is illuminating in its principal messages, some of which I would like to share with you (edited due to space constraints):
“Principal Messages: This Panel, diverse in experience, expertise, and philosophy, agrees broadly that the delivery system in mathematics education—the system that translates mathematical knowledge into value and ability for the next generation—is broken and must be fixed.
• The mathematics curriculum in Grades PreK–8 should be streamlined and should emphasize a well-defined set of the most critical topics in the early grades.
• Use should be made of what is clearly known from rigorous research about how children learn by recognizing a) the advantages for children in having a strong start; b) the mutually reinforcing benefits of conceptual understanding, procedural fluency, and automatic (i.e., quick and effortless) recall of facts; and c) that effort, not just inherent talent, counts in mathematical achievement.
• Our citizens and their educational leadership should recognize mathematically knowledgeable classroom teachers as having a central role in mathematics education and should encourage rigorously evaluated initiatives for attracting and appropriately preparing prospective teachers, and for evaluating and retaining effective teachers.
• Instructional practice should be informed by high-quality research and by the best professional judgment and experience of accomplished classroom teachers. High-quality research does not support the contention that instruction should be either entirely “student centered” or “teacher directed.”
• NAEP and state assessments should be improved in quality and should carry increased emphasis on the most critical knowledge and skills leading to Algebra.
Positive results can be achieved in a reasonable time, but a consistent, wise, community-wide effort will be required. Education in the United States has many participants—teachers, students, and parents; state school officers, school board members, superintendents, and principals; all carry responsibilities. All can be important to success.”
In addition to these principal messages, the National Math Advisory Panel identified a clear set of year-to-year bench marks that need to be met to prepare students adequately for algebra, which constitutes the essential prelude to a diversity of careers and success for college graduation. Thus, in addressing concerns about math education for the students in our town, some critical questions are: Does a program exist that the school can purchase that takes the recommendations of the expert panel fully into consideration? Secondly: How does our town implement these outstanding recommendations into our school system?
I have asked the experts these questions. As would be expected, the answers are not straightforward. The U.S. Department of Education would not provide specific details about commercial programs, because they cannot endorse programs by any publisher. I have had various conversations with members of the State Department of Education and the Vermont Mathematics Initiative, a UVM – affiliated institute with its main goal to support highly effective mathematics instruction across the entire state.
The outcome of those conversations is the clear message that none of the commercially available math programs meet the criteria set forth in the panel’s report. Indeed, the overruling opinion of experts at the Vermont Mathematics Initiative are “that long term support mechanisms must be developed that include high quality content based professional development, leadership support for the math leader(s) who are charged with overseeing the process, formative assessment training, and on-going professional learning.” Particularly relevant for our school is “the belief that too often, schools treat the adoption of a new book as the one single action that will improve performance. Adopting a new book should be the result of a complete analysis of the entire mathematics curriculum and program at one’s school.”
So…what should our school do? It is obvious from the information that is available that outstanding math education for our students will require efforts that span far more than purchasing a new math program. It means bringing math education experts into our community. In my communications with members of the Vermont State Department of Education, the school board and our school administration I have suggested that that our town form a math working group consisting of various stake holders including teachers at its core, parents, administrators and experts, to work through not only the current problems in a thorough, thoughtful and transparent manner, but also to create a sustainable system to evaluate the curriculum as we go forward.
It also is my firm belief that the leaders from the Vermont Mathematics Initiative at UVM should be at the core of this reform process. This idea was endorsed enthusiastically by some of the experts but not by some members of our school administration. I believe such proposed actions would empower our community with the knowledge required in order to realign the education of our students with the important new benchmarks. It is my hope that we will be able to put conflicting agendas, politics, etc. aside, so that we may work together as a community. After all, we share the same goal in wanting what is best for all of our children.

Yvonne Janssen-Heininger

Yvonne Janssen-Heininger, is a professor in the department of pathology at the University of Vermont and adjunct professor of pulmonology at Maastricht University Medical Center in Maastricht, the Netherlands.