A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Summary and Conclusion

In conclusion, the effort begun by a group of small school districts north of Chicago has already begun to show some promising results. Motivated to take the National Education Goals seriously, this consortium embarked upon a detailed plan of action to "become first in the world in math and science by the year 2000."

As a first step in their plan, Consortium students became the only school districts to take part in TIMSS, the most ambitious, comprehensive, and rigorous international assessment of math and science yet undertaken.

In contrast to the U.S., the FiW performed exceptionally well on the Consortium's initial benchmark, indicating that they are well on their way to achieving their goal. In fact, TIMSS results indicate that fourth and eighth grade students performed at, or near, the top of the world in both math and science.

In the twelfth grade, results were more mixed. Although students taking the general knowledge assessments achieved world class standards, FiW students taking the advanced math and physics exams performed near the international average. However, FiW AP students taking the advanced math and physics exams, perhaps a better group to use for international comparisons, performed at the top of the world.

Given the Consortium's performance, this report explored some of the possible reasons why they did so well compared to the U.S. by focusing on math. Initial analyses of the relationship between FiW and U.S. math achievement and student and family socio-economic background characteristics found that home and family characteristics could explain less than half of the difference in scores.

Accordingly, differences in the contexts for teaching and learning math between the FiW and the U.S. were examined as possible explanations of the remaining gaps between these two groups.

Four broad areas were explored:

(1) curriculum,

(2) instructional practices,

(3) teacher engagement, and the

(4) teaching environment.

Although similar patterns were reported in all of these areas, important differences did emerge.

The review of curriculum and textbook data found that the number of topics addressed by U.S. and FiW math textbooks is similar and FiW students spend class time on just as many topics as their U.S. peers.

Nevertheless, some differences do exist between FiW and U.S eighth grade math textbooks, with FiW eighth-grade textbooks more focused on algebra and geometry than U.S. books.

In addition, FiW students seem to be introduced to more advanced topics earlier than U.S. students. This pattern is found in both the fourth-and eighth-grades, and, as might be expected, is even more pronounced in the eighth grade.

TIMSS data on instructional practices also suggest additional differences between FiW and U.S. fourth and eighth grade math classes. Although students report that similar patterns in the four most frequently used activities, the data indicate that FiW and U.S. math teachers rely on different methods when demonstrating how to do math problems.

In the fourth grade, FiW teachers rely on a variety of approaches for teaching; no one method dominates-. In the eighth grade, by contrast, group instruction of the whole class is reported as the most frequent classroom organizational approach in the FiW and high math-achievement countries.

This approach is used far more frequently than in U.S. eighth-grade math classes, suggesting that FiW students may have math teachers who use direct teaching styles more frequently than their U.S. counterparts, with the form of instruction varying according to the grade level.

The TIMSS data also suggested differences between the types of math activities performed by FiW and U.S. in class. In particular, FiW fourth-and eighth-grade math students are more likely than U.S. students to be asked to perform reasoning tasks than to spend time practicing computational skills.

In addition, important differences exist in how homework is assigned and used. FiW students are more likely than U.S. students to have daily homework and to discuss these completed assignments in class. Together, these results suggest that FiW math students may be more challenged than U.S. students to show their mastery of more advanced ideas or concepts.

As for teacher engagement, FiW students may have teachers that are more engaged than U.S. teachers in a wide assortment of school-related activities. Examples include participating in school-related activities outside the regular work day, meeting with their colleagues, identifying and selecting textbooks, buying supplies, and keeping up with new curriculum and instructional developments and techniques.

Similar patterns were also found in teacher reports on teaching environments. Across the FiW, the U.S., and high achieving math countries, teachers reported similar patterns: student factors most hindered their ability to teach, while the adequacy of class supplies was less of a limitation. FiW teachers reported that the adequacy of supplies limited their ability to teach very little, no doubt reflecting the relatively high wealth of the districts.

These data suggest that key components of delivering a top notch math education may be introducing advanced math topics into the curriculum earlier and spending more time in the classroom concentrating on instruction.

Efforts to foster active teacher participation in classroom planning, school decision-making, and to allow teachers opportunities to learn about key changes in curriculum and assessments are also likely to be positive.

The FiW Consortium knows that these international achievement benchmarks are not static. While FiW students have done well in 1996, this success does not guarantee continued success since the achievement benchmark may be set at a different point in 1999 and in coming years.

Accordingly, the FiW Consortium has also begun its efforts to define and clarify world-class standards in instruction, assessment, and curriculum. Working with its partners at the regional and national level, the Consortium is identifying current and emerging research and best practices in all of these areas.

Recognizing that the current context for teaching and learning within the FiW consortium may also provide some clues as to what it takes to do well in math and science, the Consortium is also exploring the TIMSS data for suggestions as to which instructional, curricular, and assessment practices may work well in the U.S.

Finally, the Consortium has worked hard to create a structure for developing a cross-district community of learners that would involve educators, parents, and community leaders.

It has established teacher learning networks in four areas: curriculum, assessment, instruction, and technology; and awarded grants to groups of teachers pursuing projects in these areas. These projects, along with the other efforts of learning networks, will lay the groundwork for the expansion of these networks into larger, more inclusive learning communities.

Taken together, these results and activities provide exciting news. They illustrate not only that U.S. students have the potential to become the first in the world in math and science, but also that districts can work in a collaborative, cooperative manner to strive towards this goal.

-###-

[ What is the FiW Consortium Doing to Improve Math and Science? ]

[ Bibliography ]

This page last modified on November 23, 1999. (dtm)