NAEP vs. TIMSS, 8th grade Math

Translating NAEP to TIMSS % Proficient or better

Singapore 73
S. Korea 65
Hong Kong 64
Japan & Chinese Taipei 61
Belgium (Flemish) 51
Netherlands 41
Hungary, Slovak Rep., Slovenia, Canada,
Russia, Australia 39 to 35
Czech Rep., Malaysia, Bulgaria, Finland 32 to 29
United States 27

Data taken from Linking NAEP Achievement Levels to TIMSS, American Institutes for Research (2007)

NAEP is our National Assessment of Educational Progress, i.e. our national test. In general the NAEP standards are consistently higher than those of the individual states who chose to reduce their standards to make complying with the No Child Left Behind requirement that all students be proficient or better by 2014 easier. That is, the states took the low road. If you want your performance to look better than it is, choose a short ruler to measure it.

TIMSS is The International Math and Science Study. The chart above lists only the countries whose kids scored better than ours in math for 8th graders. I chose the 8th grade level because it is a pivot point. That is, at fourth grade we do a little better and at high school level we do worse.

Most American mainline schools’ approach to teaching math is to use constructivist or discovery methods as embodied in EveryDay Math, for example. This approach does not build the foundational math skills during the elementary years required for success in algebra and higher math. Thus, as our kids progress through the grades they do worse and worse which is reinforced by TIMSS and other testing. This approach is definitely not preparing our kids to compete in the rising global meritocracy for the well paying knowledge-based jobs. This approach does make it easier for the elementary teachers who do not have adequate math knowledge to teach the foundational math skills required to be successful.It casts them in a facilitator role instead of a teacher role.

Research such as that of Liping Ma which compared American and Chinese elementary math teachers found the American teachers although “more educated” than their Chinese counterparts did not have the math understanding needed. This is no surprise since education schools prioritize pedagogy to the virtual exclusion of content training in their programs.

Our educators approach to math is what I call the Platte River Syndrome. That is the curriculum is a mile wide and an inch deep. This diffuse approach wastes lots of time that could and should be spent on building a strong foundation of hierarchical skills which is how math works.

A quote from the Singapore Ministry of Education is instructive, from their Nurturing Every Child, booklet (2006), “Teach Less, Learn More--Syllabuses will be trimmed without diluting students’ preparedness for higher education. This will free up time for our students to focus on core knowledge and skills.” You see in the chart above the validity of the Singapore approach and the failure of our approach.

One last comment, E.D. Hirsch, the stimulus for the Massachusetts Miracle (legislature required the ditching of constructivist curricula and achievement soared), says that educators are so brainwashed in their technically wrong beliefs that they will only change if forced to from the outside. That is, parents need to demand change and expect their political representatives to force it to happen. This is an area where negotiation with educators only delays the lifeline the kids so desperately need. Oh, the final nail in the coffin is that the constructivist curricula hurt the gap kids (minority and economically disadvantaged) the most.