college of education | fall 2000

Researchers Find Systemic Problem in U.S. Mathematics and Science Education

When MSU Distinguished Professor William Schmidt and his colleagues released the various achievement results of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (timss) in the mid-1990s, the image of American students that emerged was stark.

timss, the most extensive and far reaching cross-national comparative study of mathematics and science education ever attempted, found that U.S. students did not start out behind their peers in other countries. In science, American fourth graders outperformed all other countries except South Korea and scored above the international average in mathematics.

But by eighth grade, U.S. students barely scored above the international average in science, and in math they could only outperform a handful of nations. Scores for 12th graders were dismal. In mathematics, the students could outperform only two nations—Cyprus and South Africa—and in physics, they finished at the bottom.

In the latest book published by the timss National Research Center based in the College of Education, Schmidt and his team of researchers take aim at mathematics and science education and find structural problems in the educational system that help explain the poor performance.

Facing the Consequences: Using TIMSS for a Closer Look at U.S. Mathematics and Science Education (Kluwer Academic Press) focuses almost exclusively on fourth and eighth grade students. Drawing on new analyses of timss data, the researchers show how the curriculum is powerfully linked to achievement results.

In one analysis, Schmidt and his team were able to look at what students had learned from the third to fourth grade and from seventh to eighth in mathematics and science. Overall, the growth was not impressive for American students.

In the equivalent of going from seventh to eighth grade, for instance, almost half of the countries (18 of 41) ranked first or second in terms of gains made from one year to the next in at least one of the 20 content areas tested. The mathematics and science content areas included such things as measurement, decimals, fractions and percents, earth processes, and life cycles and genetics. The U.S. was among seven countries that did not rank in the top 10 for any of the 20 areas.

For Schmidt, it reinforces the belief that U.S. mathematics and science education is “a mile wide and an inch deep,” especially during the middle school years. It becomes clearer when you look at some of the most impressive gains.

In the mathematical content area of congruence and similarity, Japan’s gain at eighth grade ranked well above almost all other countries. It is no surprise, Schmidt said, that when Japan’s curriculum was analyzed, the researchers found that a great deal of time was devoted to that subject area. But no other country in the study posted impressive gains in all of the content areas. Such a finding, Schmidt said, was to be expected because unlike the United States, which seeks to cover a great deal of ground in its curriculum, other countries focus on fewer content areas, but deal with them in greater depth.

In addition to drawing on the timss data, Schmidt and his colleagues identify the structural characteristics of American educational practice that lead to incoherent mathematics and science education.

Although there are many factors, Schmidt said that three characteristics have played an especially pronounced role in the United States. The three relate to (1) the distributed nature of educational decision-making, (2) the differential access to educational content, and 

(3) the almost uniquely American view of middle school as a kind of extension of elementary school.

In terms of shared responsibility for decision-making, Schmidt is quick to make clear that his point is not that such a system is somehow inherently bad. It is simply different than many other countries. timss revealed that in the countries that were examined, joint decision-making was rare, especially in decisions about the goals and content of instruction. In most cases, decisions were made solely by a central ministry or regional authority.

It is clear to Schmidt that with more than 1,000 school districts, 50 states, and the federal government all sharing an interest in the schools, it is easy to lose focus, and for conflicting educational goals to arise.

Then there is the issue of differential access, which is expressed in classrooms by the practice of tracking. For Schmidt, the practice is nothing short of abhorrent.

“The true argument about equity is that if opportunity really matters then all children should be given the same opportunities, and this is virtually what all other countries do,” he said. “They provide equal opportunities for all students up to eighth or ninth grade. In the United States, we begin this differentiation somewhere about sixth or seventh grade, which creates differences among students. It has nothing to do with what they can or cannot learn. We enforce differences.”

Differences among students will always exist, but Schmidt and his colleagues provide timss data that show that in most countries more than 90 percent of the variation among students is the product of individual differences. In the United States, more than half of the variation is the result of differences created by differentiated opportunities.

The final characteristic is the conception of middle school as the culmination of elementary school. Schmidt is convinced that this view accounts, at least in part, for the lack of rigor in mathematics and science during those years.

“The result is that kids in middle school are just expected to continue to do the same elementary math and science,” he said. “Whereas in other countries it is very clear that they start to move students into the formal disciplines of algebra, geometry, physics, chemistry. There is a shift there and we just don’t make that shift.”

Schmidt argues that we must make that conceptual shift to viewing middle school as the beginning of high school. It is in middle school, Schmidt points out, that American students fall behind their peers in other countries. They never make up that deficit, and in fact fall further behind in high school. “The only way we could make it up is for the rest of the world to stand still. Then we would catch up.”

In the end, Schmidt and his colleagues make clear that fixing the problem belies simplistic solutions, such as imitating the curricula or instructional practices of successful nations, or assigning more homework.

Instead he calls for systemic change. It is very difficult for an individual teacher, or school district to change things individually. It would be impossible to find a textbook that would meet their needs, Schmidt said, not to mention the consequences that could arise from results on a state’s standardized test.

For Schmidt, the message is clear: The only way to fix the problems inherent in U.S. mathematics and science education is to adopt system-wide changes.

Back to Contents